Is Old Music Killing New Music

[Jerjo]

https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/is-o...ling-new-music

A lot to debate and discuss here. We've beat around this topic for decades now but I think this fresh look at it is worth reading.

[clivey]

https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/is-o...ling-new-music

A lot to debate and discuss here. We've beat around this topic for decades now but I think this fresh look at it is worth reading.

Yeah if you or you and your band are doing original material you absolutely better love what you are doing for the sake of it.
If it's cash you need from your music then wedding, function and traditional has to be where it's at.
A hard decision?

Lots of gifted players from every musical genre out in the street playing for tips all over the planet . A few get lucky .

The global musical instrument and equipment market needs to step up if it wants kids to invest hard dough in a future making music methinks?

[Dana5140]

There is indeed a lot to unpack in that article and there are areas where I profoundly disagree with what the article says, but there is also a number of truths embedded in it. Question: where do we see a lot of energy spent in current music? Well, country, for one- safe, simple, controlled by a small group of writers and so on. We see it with pop singers, all of whom to me are fairly interchangeable and certainly meaningless as cultural turn points. But there is exciting new music to be found, and sometimes it shows up in unexpected places- For me, discovering Diana Ankudinova 3 weeks ago was one of the most exciting developments for me in years. And she has only a digital record to her name right now. And is only 18.

I neeed to think on this- so much to say and no time right now to say it.

[markwoll]

So much music is available at the touch of a finger, the weigh of the 'past' just keeps getting heavier and "new music" has just that much more to compete with.
Casual music consumption has for the most part replaced 'active consumption'
An uphill battle against the past and the hype machine that prioritizes what is HOT RIGHT NOW and drowns out most everything else.

[JKL2000]

My son (23) is a big music fan, and using the standards of this article, he likes almost exclusively "old" music. He finds out about it mostly through "old" songs used in movie soundtracks. He's also a big film fan, so he'll notice a song he likes used in a movie (possibly even an "old" movie!), and look up the song, and perhaps related artists and music. But it mostly stems from what's in the movies (oh, and music used in computer games too!). Where would he hear new songs? He never listens to radio. There's no MTV and new music videos to speak of. It's a two pronged sword, really - no one's creating good, new, mainstream music, and none of the old methods of promoting it still exist.

[Jerjo]

I think that the reason music from the past resonates more and holds its value is it comes from a day when there were far less distractions. The music of the 60s/70s/80s was the anchor for those who grew up in that era. Now, the gaming sales dwarf what the record industry takes in and are well ahead of film. Music now, especially that disposable dance pop and country pop, is just background noise. There will always be people that seek to create new music but it's no longer what drives the youth market. Those that are passionate about music get drawn back to when music was the only thing that mattered.

[Poisoned Youth]

First, thank you for posting this discussion. It could get interesting.

Second, a few issues with the article when throwing out statistics that came to mind...

- Old being "18 months" ago is an odd dividing line.
- Part of the reason older music is gaining a larger market share in recent years on streaming sites is because streaming sites continue to add older catalog music to the platforms that weren't there even 3-4 years ago.
- Downloaded songs will continue to trend to older music as younger music fans will tend to stream vs. download


Generally speaking, I love the subject, but didn't really care for the article, it's reasons, and the conclusions. This isn't about "10 songs those music industry fat cats DON'T want you to hear!".

This is about human behavior, decision paralysis, branding, and an over abundance (to say the least) of available content. I don't want to get into great detail on any of these, but what is happening in the music world is happening across most or all forms of content.

Most of us on PE are old enough to remember having less choices, less disposable income, and less exposure to what is out there. Whether it be 3 TV channels, 3 radio stations, or when you could only get plain Oreos. When you went to the record store, you might by 1-2 records. You would take those home and listen to them over and over because that is all you had. Entertainment in general was produced and consumed at a slower pace, giving us more time to become more and more familiar with what we watched/heard/read.

These days, content is everywhere. If you subscribe to a few streaming services like I do, it's very difficult to keep up with everything. And to take it a step further, often times when faced with deciding between 100 or 1,000 things, we have difficulty properly weighing those decisions. As a result, when we go to watch that TV or listen to that music, we often end up going back to something comfortable and familiar instead of exploring something new.

The entertainment industry understands the powerful combination of decision paralysis, nostalgia, and branding. They know they can make more money capitalizing on established brands than on new releases. Of course, the hope is that they can get behind the next big brand name, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to compete with everything else out there. When they do, it's exploited to the max.

Music is a little different, for now, but more than one artist has made his/her claim to fame off the remake of an existing hit. But the real challenges in the music world as I see it stem from a glut of content (new and old), leaving lots of great newer music lost in plain sight. The shift from album listening to single songs over time also contributes in diminishing our connection to the the artist/musical group.

And you really don't need to go anywhere but here on PE. We have done experiments here in the past, and it's abundantly clear that the classic 70s artists still rule the roost. And with each passing decade, the musical output creates less and less of an IMPACT to the scene and its fans. There are no new "flagship" artists in 2022 that weren't already around in 2002.

That is not to say there isn't great music being made today and that some of it gets quite a bit of attention here. But virtually all of it is being listened to by less and less people over the years, and has less and less chance of having little or any impact on the scene.

Okay, enough rambling lol.

[dgtlman]

^ Youth, you are absolutely correct. The instant gratification factor is also a huge reason for the current trends. Plus, musicians don't make any $$$ for their songs themselves like bands did back in the day. Look at groups like Steely Dan or Alan Parsons who didn't tour at all, yet made lots of $$$ selling records. These days if you want to make money and get exposure you have to tour. And for those bedroom "musicians" making beats and recording songs on a laptop, touring is not an option unless you really can play an instrument.

[progmatist]

For decades general audiences didn't want to hear anything from the new album. They only wanted to hear the hits. And all the solos played note for note the same as the record at that. Drunks in bars don't want to hear up and coming bands. They only want to hear cover/tribute bands. Even general classical audiences don't want to hear contemporary works. They only want to hear Beethoven and Brahms.

[clivey]

For decades general audiences didn't want to hear anything from the new album. They only wanted to hear the hits. And all the solos played note for note the same as the record at that. Drunks in bars don't want to hear up and coming bands. They only want to hear cover/tribute bands. Even general classical audiences don't want to hear contemporary works. They only want to hear Beethoven and Brahms.

I think it`s of note that much of our so called new music isn't really all that new at all. True new music is possibly only facilitated by technological and evolutionary advancement in instrumentation , equipment and technique's. These may only come along once in a generation. See advances in keyboard instruments from pre renaissance times to what can be done in the studio today, see what was made possible by amplifying a guitar.

Many of the original "progressive rock" legends came from what is now labelled privileged ( ie rich ) backgrounds hence they were able to buy into the new tech. hence availing themselves with new textures.
this example is a generalisation , but when you look into the history of popular music of all types you see how the equipment evolving and it`s
limited accessibility drives the innovation.

only time will tell

[battema]

Speaking strictly for myself as a nobody musician out to make new music, the answer would be no.

I know Bandcamp is in the MRC Data, and I'm sure that it is easily dwarfed by the worldwide numbers overall. And I'll likely never, ever, EVER break outside the tiny Bandcamp microcosm. But within that little microcosm is a wonderful, empowering opportunity to create music how *I* see fit, make it available how I wish, and not then have to give it away for free if I don't want. Thanks to Bandcamp I've made more in the last few years than the entire rest of my life making music.

Sure, I'll never be able to retire on my income, or even manage to do a single line on the back of a $5k hooker in Vegas. I can't quit my day job. But that's fine.

As an underground artist with a nano-sized audience I'm happier than ever.

[Trane]

I think that the reason music from the past resonates more and holds its value is it comes from a day when there were far less distractions. The music of the 60s/70s/80s was the anchor for those who grew up in that era. Now, the gaming sales dwarf what the record industry takes in and are well ahead of film. Music now, especially that disposable dance pop and country pop, is just background noise. There will always be people that seek to create new music but it's no longer what drives the youth market. Those that are passionate about music get drawn back to when music was the only thing that mattered.

I'd say that music is still quite important to most youths' image and identity carving, but for the last 20 years, most of them have gotten their music without dishing out more than a dime here or there (napster, anyone?), whereas some of us in our generation drowned all our spare cash in it.

This "vital expense" for our generation has greatly diminished with the younger-than-40 crowds, thus allowing them to spend in on gaming stuff at home (we had to go to arcades to get our gaming itch fixed).

Though let's face it, the guys on sites like BluesEars, PunkEars, FunkEars, JazzEars, MetalEars and FolkEars and us are not counting for more than 15% of the males of our own total generation today - you can add some 2% of females our ages. Even back in the 70/80's, us music geeks buying loads of records were not really more than 30% of our secondary schools' global population (I'd say 40% of the male population and 10% of the females). Plenty of my GFs had a just few LPs and double that amount of singles, and that was it.

[Poisoned Youth]

Speaking strictly for myself as a nobody musician out to make new music, the answer would be no.

My take on the dramatically titled article is that a more appropriate word would be "burying" and not "killing", since recorded music is obviously still being produced, arguably at its highest rate...ever. More of it is just being pushed underground.

I think that the reason music from the past resonates more and holds its value is it comes from a day when there were far less distractions.

Agreed.

Music now, especially that disposable dance pop and country pop, is just background noise.

My take is that it's less background noise and more homogenized. Funny thing, this interwebz. In my observation, one of the unintended consequences of constantly connecting everyone is that we are losing our sense of individuality.

While technology has democratized music creation and other content significantly, it feels like - with the exception of technological advances - we are not only NOT breaking new ground, but it can be difficult to distinguish music made in 2000 from music made in 2020.

[Jay.Dee]

One informational web resource that I have always held, and still continue to hold in high esteem is RateYourMusic — an opinion aggregator that is more or less equidistant from "professional critical consensus" (which, as a rule, will put Bono and Bruce Springsteen at the top if youʼre over 40, and Drake and Rihanna if youʼre under) and "full-on democracy" (which, like every true democracy, eventually turns into an empire — our current one seems to be ruled by Empress Taylor and Emperor Ed). RYM, on the other hand, from its early inception and up until now was largely dominated by a community of genuine music lovers, whose tastes can, of course, still be influenced by the force of trends and fashions, but are, nevertheless, more likely to be formed by independent experience (as is clearly seen from the large numbers of thoughtful and non-formulaic reviews found therein). With the occasional oddball exception (such as the rather surprising abundance of heavy metal fans who often seem to regard RYM as their personal playground), I tend to view RYM as a platform that reflects the average consensus of people who do give a damn about music as art, rather than music as a source for making a living or just a casual soundtrack for daily chores.

Consequently, the following observations about RYMʼs Top 10 (or Top 15, or Top 20, no matter) lists for recent years, really going all the way back to approximately the mid- or late-2000s, may actually be meaningful and deserve at least to be taken into consideration.


1) Very few acts tend to have their output successfully recognized year after year after year. Other than just a handful of mainstays like Kendrick Lamar (see below on hip-hop), artists from this yearʼs Top 10 are not highly likely to be featured in the previous or in the next yearʼs top spots. Interestingly, artists that made a name for themselves in the early-to-mid 2000ʼs, like Arcade Fire or Beach House or Sufjan Stevens, have a higher chance of recognition in the 2010s than artists that first emerged in the late 2000s to early 2010s (like Janelle Monáe, whose 2010 debut even I recognize as a modern masterpiece, but who has since gone down like a torpedo according to the overall RYM consensus).

2) Very few albums from those Top 10ʼs make it into the general all-time chart. As of this moment, for instance (August 2019), the RYM Top 100 includes only 12 records that are younger than 2000, of which, it is important to note, half are hip-hop (Kanye Westʼs My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and The College Dropout, Kendrick Lamarʼs To Pimp A Butterfly and Good Kid, Madvillainʼs Madvillainy, Danny Brownʼs Atrocity Exhibition), three are albums by artists whose reputations were well established before 2001 (Radioheadʼs In Rainbows and Amnesiac, David Bowieʼs Blackstar), and only three are by pop/rock artists that truly belong to the new millennium (Arcade Fireʼs Funeral, Sufjan Stevensʼ Illinois, Interpolʼs Turn On The Bright Lights — though even here the countdown stops at 2005). It is interesting and telling, by the way, that the hip-hop surge is a relatively new development: Kanye and Kendrik have been recognized for a long time, but have only recently been "upgraded" to the Top 20. [Update: As of August 2021, the number has swelled to an “impressive” 14, with Frank Ocean and Death Grips joining the heavyweights.]

3) Rock veterans from Paul McCartney to U2 almost never appear in these recent Top 10s, which is a credit to RYM — at the very least, nobody could accuse the resource of succumbing to the ideology of dinosaurism. However, it is worth noting that every once in a while, if you modify your search to include archival releases, the Top 10s are immediately transformed. For example, 2018 will have Bob Dylanʼs Bootleg Series Vol. 14 (essentially an alternate version of Blood On The Tracks) as #1; 2011 yields the top spot to the Beach Boysʼ The Smile Sessions; and almost each year in between has at least one or two spots occupied by something else from the vaults (most often it is yet another of Bobʼs Bootleg Series, but not exclusively so). [Update: As of August 2021, this trend is weakening, which is no doubt caused by the gradual exhaustion of the vaults.]

4) Although I do not have enough persistence to verify this formally, it does seem to me that the overall numbers of ratings and reviews for top-rated albums in the last decade (2011 to present) tend to noticeably decrease compared to previous years. If true, this would confirm the often talked-about phenomenon of "audience splintering", i.e. people distributed over specific niches and albums primarily targeted at various interest groups rather than the musical community in general (if such a "community" could even be said to exist).


Now it is time to take these roughly objective observations and try to relate them with my personal experiences — avoiding, if possible, as simplistic a general interpretation as "see, I told you modern music sucks". The point that I would rather argue is that modern music — along with, frankly speaking, many other modern things — is increasingly becoming more disposable than it used to be. Which may, in a way, be the equivalent of "sucks" to people like myself, who have always been drawn to things of lasting rather than passing value; but is definitely not a condemnation on the global level.

The fact that a large percent of music (movies, literature, art in general, you name it) has always been disposable — just think of all the armies of forgotten Baroque composers or third-rate Delta bluesmen — has nothing to do with this point. The only thing that this point argues is that in the past, it made more sense to think of the hierarchy of musical quality as a pyramid, with a well-defined apex reserved for the proverbial Bachs / Beethovens / Miles Davises / Beatles / Björks and their ilk. In the present, I can only really think of music as a plateau-shaped trapezoid — a pyramid whose top has been neatly sliced off (or, more accurately, eroded), so that it no longer appears sharply visible above the oceans of time. In less formalistic and/or metaphorical terms, this means that the current age produces just as much, or maybe even more, good music than any previous one — but significantly less (and I would even argue next to no) great music. Granted, uttering the words "good" and "great" so soon may be qualified as poor form, but bear with me for now, and we will return to this linguistic issue later on.

What are the reasons for such a transition? Paradoxically, just about all the possible reasons that I can think of have something to do with progress. Regardless of all the troubles that we suffer on an everyday basis, regardless of the fact that many of us are depressed and tired and disillusioned in our fellow humans, on the whole it is hard to lodge formal complaints when we have higher technologies, more advanced artificial intelligence, more free time on our hands, better access to intellectual culture, more opportunities for creativity — well, not all of us do, of course, but the overall statistics are clearly on the progressive side here (I think somebody like Steven Pinker argues this point far more professionally than myself - after all, he’s getting paid for it!). And let me be fully clear about this: I do not intend to lament about this state of things one bit — only a retrograde moron would. Itʼs just that all good things in life come at a price, and we, too, must be willing to pay ours; trying to swindle fortune is at best dishonest, and at worst fatal.

https://onlysolitaire.substack.com/p...-is-it-heading

[Steve983]

RB weighs in with this too:

[Dana5140]

The simple answer for why RYM features so much music from teh past 20 years over older stuff is that older listeners do not go there to vote. Thus, you see the votes skew young as a result.

[Lopez]

... with a nano-sized audience....

I resemble that remark!

[battema]

I resemble that remark!

and I thank you dearly for it

[JKL2000]

I've never used RYM.

[Jerjo]

Sweetwater has an answer, new music that explores old styles. Of course, they wouldn't mind you buying some instruments on the way. But it's a big list of bands I need to go through now. As always, there's no prog.

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/th...to-or-do-they/

[Enidi]

I don't know if any of you have ever played in a bar band in South Jersey, but it's a very backwards way of life. Ages 21 to 55...thereabouts and they're all requesting Rock Music that's compiled from a handpicked list.

They all basically think the same. It all seems to be about Led Zeppelin...which ...there's nothing wrong with liking Led Zeppelin, but let's be honest...Led Zeppelin does not represent the generation of kids I grew up with. Led Zeppelin were popular in the early 70s, but kids cruising around getting high etc...often requested hearing other bands like Ten Years After, Deep Purple, Rory Gallagher, Free, etc . and several of these bands played stadiums not unlike Zeppelin.

Try name dropping a few of these bands in the Rock n' Roll bars and people generally give you the "deer in the headlight look". "Rory who?" That's basically the reaction you'll get. Rory Gallagher was a Rock guitarist that I saw perform in front of thousands during the mid 70s.

On Facebook it's all about Led Zeppelin, CCR, and Southern Rock. After a while you just find yourself scrolling down because it's social media praising all the things that are on your pay no mind list. What good is it?

It's not a representation of Rock Music I grew up with nor my friends. They don't get it. How can all those people in the Rock n' Roll bars listen to Southern Rock from 75', but have absolutely no clue who Duane Allman is? That's ridiculous. They think that the Allman Brothers Band revolves around the importance of a song like "Ramblin' Man". They have no clue whatsoever that the Allman Brothers Band played a little jazzy and progressive on the Fillmore East and Eat A Peach. No...they don't know anything about that.

All they do is sum up my generation with a handpicked list of Rock songs that many kids made fun of or disliked in high school. They're not really interested in the diversity within Rock Music during the 70s. All they care about is a handpicked list. Bar owners, bar hoppers, bar bands,...it's a phony situation in South Jersey. I'm not concerned about old music affecting the poor outcome of new music when in fact their definition of old music is backwards to begin with.

[Dana5140]

I've never used RYM.

I never had either. So, I went to the site a little while ago. I used the search command to type in "Magma," for the band I know best. By and large the comments were pretty ignorant and knew almost nothing of the band and its history. And there were not a whole lot comments anyway, maybe 15 total for Magma Live, which was the highest rated Magma disc. So, really, what you have is the same kind of idiocy you see on virtually every social media site, a lot of people commenting as if they were experts about things they know nothing about. This would be an utterly useless site for me.

[EBES]

I do think this effect is real. I think that, in a world where almost all the music ever made is available with minimal expense and convenience, accretion of the best material will occur. 98% of the music released in any given year is somewhere between meh and terrible, but the other 2% piles up year after year, and you reach a point of saturation where there's so much best-of-the-best material available that the motivation to weed through recent releases to find the relatively small number of great things is quite diminished.

I actually struggle with this myself as a listener. I think it's incredibly important to find new music that resonates with you, and to support current artists, but I'm also aware of the sheer amount of fantastic older stuff I've never heard, and also of the fact that there are lots of things I like and kind of know that I probably haven't listened to with the depth of attention that I should have. I often feel slightly guilty for, I dunno, trying one more time to really get Tormato instead of listening to something new.

I did an MFA in my mid twenties and spent a few years as an aspiring writer of literary fiction, and found the same effect to be even more the case there. Most people who read fiction, if they want to read something they think will be meaningful and ambitious, will reach for something "classic," whether that's Dickens or Hemingway or something more recent like David Foster Wallace or Toni Morrison that's still been in the pantheon for roughly as long as I've been alive. Most people who write and publish lit fic couldn't do so without the institutional support of academia, and that's partly a consequence, I think, of the fact that there are probably enough good books out there already.

To Enidi's point, most of the engagement with those old songs is shallow and one-dimensional, but that's most people's engagement with most things (myself included a lot of the time).

[Enidi]

I do think this effect is real. I think that, in a world where almost all the music ever made is available with minimal expense and convenience, accretion of the best material will occur. 98% of the music released in any given year is somewhere between meh and terrible, but the other 2% piles up year after year, and you reach a point of saturation where there's so much best-of-the-best material available that the motivation to weed through recent releases to find the relatively small number of great things is quite diminished.

I actually struggle with this myself as a listener. I think it's incredibly important to find new music that resonates with you, and to support current artists, but I'm also aware of the sheer amount of fantastic older stuff I've never heard, and also of the fact that there are lots of things I like and kind of know that I probably haven't listened to with the depth of attention that I should have. I often feel slightly guilty for, I dunno, trying one more time to really get Tormato instead of listening to something new.

I did an MFA in my mid twenties and spent a few years as an aspiring writer of literary fiction, and found the same effect to be even more the case there. Most people who read fiction, if they want to read something they think will be meaningful and ambitious, will reach for something "classic," whether that's Dickens or Hemingway or something more recent like David Foster Wallace or Toni Morrison that's still been in the pantheon for roughly as long as I've been alive. Most people who write and publish lit fic couldn't do so without the institutional support of academia, and that's partly a consequence, I think, of the fact that there are probably enough good books out there already.

To Enidi's point, most of the engagement with those old songs is shallow and one-dimensional, but that's most people's engagement with most things (myself included a lot of the time).

But I remember when the youth wasn't shallow. I remember teenagers listening to Humble Pie and King Crimson both! ...and I believe that can be attributed to King Crimson opening for Humble Pie on several occasions. As a result fans of Humble Pie became fans of King Crimson. Some of the most hard-core supporters of mainstream Rock became Progressive Rock fans because they were introduced to it at a Rock concert. Music was diverse and regular Rock bands were Eclectic. And then the world changed ...ok moving rapidly right along 😃

[Jerjo]

I did an MFA in my mid twenties and spent a few years as an aspiring writer of literary fiction, and found the same effect to be even more the case there. Most people who read fiction, if they want to read something they think will be meaningful and ambitious, will reach for something "classic," whether that's Dickens or Hemingway or something more recent like David Foster Wallace or Toni Morrison that's still been in the pantheon for roughly as long as I've been alive. Most people who write and publish lit fic couldn't do so without the institutional support of academia, and that's partly a consequence, I think, of the fact that there are probably enough good books out there already.

To Enidi's point, most of the engagement with those old songs is shallow and one-dimensional, but that's most people's engagement with most things

I used to read a lot of literary fiction but these days its nearly all SFF or books on music. I make exceptions for a handful of writers in lit fic (Chabon, Russo, Erdrich) but for the most part my comfort zone and my intellectual curiosity are satisfied with reading either the fantastical or about music I like. SFF has become so inclusive of other viewpoints and ethnicities that it has become hard to keep up with all the up and coming authors.

I think that the majority of people that listen to music and go to shows are only interested in hearing "the hits" played just like they were done on the radio. It's not the intensity that we feel here or on places like the Hoffman forum.

There are few things more depressing to me than go into someone's home for the first time and see absolutely no signs of music (whether it be audio equipment or CDs or even headphones) or books. What kind of a life is that? I get that people stream a lot of entertainment now. I have a ton of ebooks on my iPad but I still have overflowing bookshelves. A home void of books and music is still a sad sight.