Why did the last 4T have so much better music than this 4T?

[noway2]

(03-08-2017, 12:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would say it depends on what you're listening to. If you're listening to underground rock, underground hip hop/reggaeton there is a lot of good music out there.

I think you're pretty much hitting it on the head. I think we're seeing a combination of lowest common denominator based corporatism combined with technology changes that make it difficult to quantify music culture.

It used to be that (commercial) radio and physical music stores worked hand in hand and the offerings of both were representative of the current musical culture. Not so much today. Commercial radio has been effectively killed by syndication and even "rock" stations play the same old songs from days of lore while playing virtually nothing new and this is obviously some sort of market driven economic force. I suspect that it is in part an artificial effect caused by groups like the "record labels" and the RIAA and a fight over royalties.

So more and more people move away from corporate radio. I myself, listen to more music than I have in previous years, but it is largely foreign in origin. I find that I particularly like Gothic / Symphonic metal which is heavily dominated by the Scandinavian countries today. I listen to virtually nothing that is American. My sources include purchasing MP3 'albums' and online streaming from various sources rather than physical media.

[Kinser79]

(03-08-2017, 03:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-08-2017, 12:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would say it depends on what you're listening to.  If you're listening to underground rock, underground hip hop/reggaeton there is a lot of good music out there.  If you're listening to the Top 40, well it's been garbage for decades---at least since the end of the 2T.  There is a reason for that.  Underground music is typically done for the sake of the art itself, the Top 40 is to make as much profit out of selling ad time on the radio and therefore caters to the lowest common denominator.

That being said I've been listening to a lot of salsa lately but that's mostly because I hired a lot of Puerto Ricans.  At least the Top 40 on the Spanish language stations is significantly better than the English language stations.

In a way, that was my point.  The music scene is a music-mall full of narrowly focused boutiques.  Many have really great music, and a tiny audience.  The old model allowed for the building of a Great Songbook; think Cole Porter or the Beatles.  They had wide and diverse audiences that absorbed the music and made it Great.  That's not to say that all of it really was, but that's the meme we've accepted.

FWIW, I grew up on Jazz, and that's always been great.  The audience has never been large.  That takes nothing away but the fame.

Cole Porter sure.  The Beatles are vastly over rated.  Heavily influential, yes, but over rated.  If you want to talk about good rock from the 2T I'd have to say Pink Floyd.

I think you'll find that a great deal of under ground music has a much larger audience than it used to have.  Part of the reason for that is a change in the distribution model.  It is far easier for musicians now to make money by selling shows but giving their music away for nothing over the internet--not like that wouldn't happen anyway if they signed with a major label as it is.

In the information age the record companies are struggling.  What good is having a super expensive production infrastructure when people can shoot a music video on their phone and share it with the world in five minutes?

Salsa and Reggaeton both have a very large audience, and at least in FL not just among Latinos.  Blacks and Whites have taken to listening to the Spanish radio because the quality of music is vastly superior to the schlock that is pumped out on the Top 40s. 

Where I live we have four major FM stations (excluding the one that's all news all the time, and the one that's all talk radio all the time).  One of those is the Christian station (being an atheist I have no interest in it--even if it were good but isn't), then there's the "black" station that plays degenerate hip hop that has to be bleeped every other word (makes me wonder what the point is).

Then there's the "country" station.  They don't actually play country music, just what passes for country music these days I like me some Hank Williams (Sr or Jr, the 3rd not so much) or Conway Twitty but there's not been any good hillbilly crack around since about 1988.  The last station is the Spanish station which plays Salsa which is essentially Big Band with people singing in Spanish.

I don't mind the Spanish even if I can't really follow it.  Second language and all that.  Personally I like Reggaeton the best.  This for example.  In before someone yells that Daddy Yankee is on the Spanish Top 40s

[Kinser79]

(03-08-2017, 04:07 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(03-08-2017, 12:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would say it depends on what you're listening to.  If you're listening to underground rock, underground hip hop/reggaeton there is a lot of good music out there.

I think you're pretty much hitting it on the head. I think we're seeing a combination of lowest common denominator based corporatism combined with technology changes that make it difficult to quantify music culture.

It used to be that (commercial) radio and physical music stores worked hand in hand and the offerings of both were representative of the current musical culture.  Not so much today.  Commercial radio has been effectively killed by syndication and even "rock" stations play the same old songs from days of lore while playing virtually nothing new and this is obviously some sort of market driven economic force.  I suspect that it is in part an artificial effect caused by groups like the "record labels" and the RIAA and a fight over royalties.  

So more and more people move away from corporate radio. I myself, listen to more music than I have in previous years, but it is largely foreign in origin.  I find that I particularly like Gothic / Symphonic metal which is heavily dominated by the Scandinavian countries today.  I listen to virtually nothing that is American.  My sources include purchasing MP3 'albums' and online streaming from various sources rather than physical media.

I can't speak for your tastes.  I'm gravitating toward Latin America rather than Scandinavia---unless of course it is Punk Rock with that classic Punk Rock flavor.  And even then I'm more likely to hear that in Spanish rather than Swedish.  That could be due to my geography though. 

Florida is heavily influenced by the Caribbean.  We have large populations of both Immigrant and Native Born Cubans, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans.  Spanish is spoken almost as much as English here (and has been since before I was born too--so it's not new).  Hence why I was able to pick it up--I get lots of practice.  Unfortunately I lack sufficient formal instruction to read much beyond --a 4th grade level in that language--I learned it from speaking it focusing on swears, insults, and commands first.

I would say that the market forces at play are the means of music reproduction.  Used to be that if you wanted to listen to a song you had to wait for it to come on the radio or Mtv (yes they used to actually play music back in the day) or go to a record store.  I'm using record to mean any recorded music format, not just vinyl.  Vinyl still has a niche market.

Think for a minute what you said about how you get your music?  You purchase MP3 albums, and stream online.  There is no need to have a record company when one can put together such an album or even a video with the right software--some of which itself can be had for cheap or even free.

[David Horn]

(03-08-2017, 10:47 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... Cole Porter sure.  The Beatles are vastly over rated.  Heavily influential, yes, but over rated.  If you want to talk about good rock from the 2T I'd have to say Pink Floyd.

I can't argue about Pink Floyd, being a very early fan myself, I'll still stand by the Beatles, since they tried so many genres and did well with all of them.  Michael Stipe from REM had the same opinion you hold, but decided he was wrong after he examined the full output they generated.  As he later admitted, they influenced many who weren't even aware of it, himself included.

Kinser79 Wrote:I think you'll find that a great deal of under ground music has a much larger audience than it used to have.  Part of the reason for that is a change in the distribution model.  It is far easier for musicians now to make money by selling shows but giving their music away for nothing over the internet--not like that wouldn't happen anyway if they signed with a major label as it is.

In the information age the record companies are struggling.  What good is having a super expensive production infrastructure when people can shoot a music video on their phone and share it with the world in five minutes?

Yes, more performers and songwriters can be heard and gain an audience, but the audiences are becoming more and more fragmented.  Other than Lady Gaga, whatever you think of her, name one group with the massive size and range of audience their predecessors could muster.

Kinser79 Wrote:Salsa and Reggaeton both have a very large audience, and at least in FL not just among Latinos.  Blacks and Whites have taken to listening to the Spanish radio because the quality of music is vastly superior to the schlock that is pumped out on the Top 40s. 

Where I live we have four major FM stations (excluding the one that's all news all the time, and the one that's all talk radio all the time).  One of those is the Christian station (being an atheist I have no interest in it--even if it were good but isn't), then there's the "black" station that plays degenerate hip hop that has to be bleeped every other word (makes me wonder what the point is).

Then there's the "country" station.  They don't actually play country music, just what passes for country music these days I like me some Hank Williams (Sr or Jr, the 3rd not so much) or Conway Twitty but there's not been any good hillbilly crack around since about 1988.  The last station is the Spanish station which plays Salsa which is essentially Big Band with people singing in Spanish.

I don't mind the Spanish even if I can't really follow it.  Second language and all that.  Personally I like Reggaeton the best.  This for example.  In before someone yells that Daddy Yankee is on the Spanish Top 40s.

Clear Channel Communications killed the radio star, or more accurately, homogenized them death.  The better stuff finds its way onto fringe stations of one type or another.  We have a locally owned 250W FM roots/alt-rock station near enough to me that I can pull it in.  I'm a fan.

[Kinser79]

Quote:I can't argue about Pink Floyd, being a very early fan myself, I'll still stand by the Beatles, since they tried so many genres and did well with all of them.  Michael Stipe from REM had the same opinion you hold, but decided he was wrong after he examined the full output they generated.  As he later admitted, they influenced many who weren't even aware of it, himself included.

They were over rated, and are over rated. I won't deny their influence and their skill with many different genres.  Michael Stipe should have kept his original opinion as it is the correct opinion.

Quote:Yes, more performers and songwriters can be heard and gain an audience, but the audiences are becoming more and more fragmented.  Other than Lady Gaga, whatever you think of her, name one group with the massive size and range of audience their predecessors could muster.

I like Lady Gaga's music.  When it comes to politics I think she should shut up because no one cares (and I say the same thing about other celebutards).  But to answer your question I can think of three right of the top of my head.  Daddy Yankee (Reggaeton), Pitbull (Latin Pop) and Enrique Iglacias (Latin Pop).

And Marc Antony is pretty popular.





I'd argue anyone who doesn't like this song is spiritually dead.

Quote:Clear Channel Communications killed the radio star, or more accurately, homogenized them death.  The better stuff finds its way onto fringe stations of one type or another.  We have a locally owned 250W FM roots/alt-rock station near enough to me that I can pull it in.  I'm a fan.

No arguments there.  But terrestrial radio is so 20th century.

[SomeGuy]

Interesting.  I too listen to primarily foreign music these days, almost exclusively through YouTube, and mostly Eastern European folk(ish) music (namely Russian, Yiddish, and some Romanian), to the extent that it comes from anywhere in particular.  Plus a bunch of classical, bluegrass, classic rock, plus random pop songs from today on back I get stuck in my head and subsequently, my playlist.

[Kinser79]

There has been some argument made in the past that Latin America is off the US saeculum by at least one and maybe two turnings. I know for a fact that Russia is as they should be entering their 2T sometime before 2030. I would say the attaction to music made and produced outside the US (excluding Puerto Rico) might have to do with the fact that what's left of Millisaec culture is just exhausted. Remember in the 1T there was a huge fad for Latin music as well.

[SomeGuy]

(03-09-2017, 10:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: There has been some argument made in the past that Latin America is off the US saeculum by at least one and maybe two turnings.  I know for a fact that Russia is as they should be entering their 2T sometime before 2030.  I would say the attaction to music made and produced outside the US (excluding Puerto Rico) might have to do with the fact that what's left of Millisaec culture is just exhausted.  Remember in the 1T there was a huge fad for Latin music as well.

I am familiar with that argument, and agree that those regions are a turning or two off (Russia is in the tailend of a 1T, etc.).  However, most of the stuff I listen to wasn't made recently, so I am not sure that holds up for me personally.  

Some examples from my playlist:

[Another Xer]

In my opinion, in this cycle there are two great moments of music - the late 60s and the early 90s. What do they have in common? One was the the peak of the Awakening and one was at the nadir of the Unraveling (like the flappers of the Lost Generation). As a Gen Xer I know the music of the early 90s will never get the credit it deserves, but it is phenomenal in terms of creativity, lyrics, and capturing an essence of youthful angst which was prevalent at the time. But the music of the early 90's was not for a broader audience outside the Generation that created it. They weren't the Beatles.

The late 60's did the same for the Baby Boom generation. Though I think 100 years from now historians will just say the Beatles revolutionized music and the next 50 years was just spin-offs of what they did. They would be largely correct. The Beatles are deserving of every bit of praise they get. The music is beautiful, deep, varied, evolving, and on the technological vanguard of the times. They are the best.

[pbrower2a]

The Big Band Era gave the greatest popular music ever -- unless you are ready to concede that Mozart and Haydn were 'popular' music in their day. I'm not sure that the 'rock star' treatment that the late Milos Forman gave to Wolfgang Amadeus in Amadeus is quite accurate, but he was profoundly popular in Vienna and Prague -- about like Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, Duke Ellington, and Tommy Dorsey in their day. Think also of the Strauss family (waltz kings)

It is hard to see how any great mass of music could approach the likes of Mozart, Haydn, or the Strauss family in quality and profusion. Maybe the Big Band Era had popular musicians who respected the classical tradition than do the musicians that we now have.