Is modern music worse or better than music 20 - 30 years ago?

I think it depends on the genre.  For example punk 30 years ago: AMAZING.  Punk now: uhhhh...?  there's punk now?  

Most stuff you hear on the radio is fucking terrible, but you knew that already. People saying there aren't good bands and artists out there anymore are fucking stupid and not worth the breath you'd spend arguing with them. There's been a huge stigma against radio rap lately, and rightfully so, but from the disgust with it you get artists like Hopsin, Macklemore, Slaughterhouse, Kendrick Lamar, Immortal Technique, Diabolic, etc. etc. etc. coming out to fill the holes. They'll never get radio play but who gives a fuck as long as you have an iPod and an auxiliary cord for your car. Anyone who listens to the massive pop station of their choice without even really thinking probably isn't that into music to begin with and just wants something catchy. There's nothing wrong with that, it just causes a lot of jaded twats on the internet to bitch and moan incessantly.

EDIT: Just realized how old this thread was and I probably commented in it when it was relevant. Fuck me.

Most music that's ever existed has been trash, in the 60's, the 80's, or now. Apparently, you guys have never heard #1 hit single Disco Duck to shatter your illusions that nobody released or listened to shit in the 70's.

Music has generally always had awesome stuff going on and complete garbage happening that sweeps up most of the good. The difference is that the good stuff survives, so our view of the 60s is distilled to The Beatles, The Stones, Simon & Garfunkle, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, etc. I'd argue that the 60s and 70s distill better than the 80s and 90s, but I'd happily put Jay-Z, Coldplay, Kanye West and LCD Soundsystem on the same pedestal as the best of the 80s and 90s. Hell, I'd probably put Kanye above most of the best of the 70s and 60s, too. Coldplay's gonna have a harder time holding up to the past in retrospect because no matter how much they changed the current soundscape, they really don't sound all that different from the John Lennon-led lyrical rock movement in the 70s and 80s.

The major difference between now and then, also, is that everyone listens to their own thing, so it's very easy to never expose yourself to good music you wouldn't normally listen to.

I hate this argument. I hate it so much.

It's not a comparison any of us can make, unless you were alive to remember what mainstream music was like in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Taking the best mainstream music from a decade and using it to define all mainstream music of that era is stupid, especially when people don't do the same thing modern times. And my least favourite part about this argument is that it makes me defend modern mainstream music, which I hate, but I take serious objection to saying that one era's mainstream music is better than another. What the hell does mainstream music even mean?

The problem is that none of us remember the terrible music around that era, because we weren't around to experience it and that music doesn't survive the march of progress and time. If you seriously don't think that your kids will be saying "man, mainstream music was waaay better in the 2000s than it is now", then prepare to be seriously disappointed.

I like music from both time periods.

It's not any worse or any better. Every generation has its shitty music and its good music and this generation is no different.

Overall, worse. There's some exceptions to the rule (steampunk music, for instance), but it's generally shit.

@Atlas said:

I hate this argument. I hate it so much.

It's not a comparison any of us can make, unless you were alive to remember what mainstream music was like in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Taking the best mainstream music from a decade and using it to define all mainstream music of that era is stupid, especially when people don't do the same thing modern times. And my least favourite part about this argument is that it makes me defend modern mainstream music, which I hate, but I take serious objection to saying that one era's mainstream music is better than another. What the hell does mainstream music even mean?

The problem is that none of us remember the terrible music around that era, because we weren't around to experience it and that music doesn't survive the march of progress and time. If you seriously don't think that your kids will be saying "man, mainstream music was waaay better in the 2000s than it is now", then prepare to be seriously disappointed.

This, apart from the hatred for modern mainstream music.

I also think the variety of music available to people is far greater and if you can't find modern music you like, then it is your fault because there is a billion ways to find music now. You may have to dig through some you don't like but there is music out there for everyone. This part isn't for you @Atlas

I hate modern music. I'm still stuck in the '80s and early '90s to be honest. Hair metal, Thrash Metal, Power Metal, Classic Rock, Ska, Pop-Punk, Classic Punk.... Nothing that's really been recorded after 2000 to be honest, and even then it's older bands that where big for decades and are still playing the same stuff they where 10 years ago.

@vagayna said:

People's standards have seriously fallen in the last 10 years. That is all.

Some people's standards, sure. There are always great and terrible bands in every generation. Anyone who think otherwise is diluted. Sure if you turn on the radio, it's mostly auto-tuned garbage, but there are plenty of bands creating interesting and thought provoking music. I always put forward The Dear Hunter as a great example of great modern music. It's just harder to find good music now. It's not on the radio.

We just live in a different world than 20-30 years ago. Accessibility is the keyword here. The digital distribution of music has allowed just about anyone with a midi setup and a few instruments the ability to sell their music with little to no loopholes. There's no contracts, no agents, none of that. This wide berth of musical talent on the internet allows the scene to get cluttered up with a lot of garbage but, conversely, more eccentric yet fantastic new artists have an opportunity to be heard. There are still a lot of old hits that get plenty of airtime on the radio and I think there will be a greater fondness for the groups of years past than those currently populating the mainstream, but I'd pick today's more diverse field of music over just the handful of artists from 30 years ago that you still hear today.

It depends on what radio station you listen to, if at all. But it tends to be the case that good music has always existed, but sometimes it's just harder to find. It's always been somewhere, though.

I do agree some subgenres are "dead", but that just means you need to either find new genres to listen to, or locate artists in that genre that you haven't listened to yet. Just because it's older and you don't know the artist yet doesn't mean it's bad music.

Worse. Much worse. Pitbull can't rap, One Direction can't sing and Nicki Minaj's lyrics make no sense. I hate it. There is worse that I dare to mention.

Music these days is bad on entirely new levels. The shit I get exposed to on these very forums is so horrid that it makes hair bands sound like Frank Sinatra.

Popular music has always been terrible and the "awesome music" of the past only exists because people took the time to cull the quality from the garbage. People twenty years from now are going to hear stuff like Kanye West and Passion Pit and think that present-day radio was amazing, when in reality we had to spend our days wading through the garbage of Mumford & Sons and Drake and occasionally stumbling upon a good popular artist.

Also, the prominence of indie music (as a concept, not a genre) has let artists of a myriad of styles and backgrounds let their music be heard, which is super fucking rad. The internet only helps in its dispersal.

So basically, music now is a lot better than it was before, and anyone telling you otherwise is choosing to ignore all the trash that existed in previous generations.

@sissylion: What's wrong with Mumford and Sons?

@RollingZeppelin: They're so boring, man. I would expect better from someone with an In Absentia avatar.

A lot of people say "most modern music is trash", but at the same time, many of those people need to look at the landscape of music, as it has changed DRAMATICALLY in the last twenty years.

The only way to get most music twenty years ago was to go to a record store and buy the album. Bands were able to rely on people picking up the album, which in essence is just a vote by the customers that tells the record labels "keep these guys signed, we wanna hear more music". Once Napster came around, the whole scene changed. Here we are twenty years later, and the distribution methods for music are vast. This has caused the record labels to become less and less powerful over time. Twenty years ago, someone selling two million records was a weekly occurrence. Nowadays, someone selling 20,000 records in one week is enough for #1 on Billboard.

Because of this decline in record sales, the mainstream music world has to not just sign "musicians", but brands and faces. They have to sell more than just the music. It's one of the reasons you've seen such a massive increase in the licensing of music for television and film. It's the reason there are so many award shows now - to put those brands in peoples' faces. Does that mean that all of those people are bad at music? Not necessarily. Some of them just have to conform to what the companies want in order to keep the labels afloat and making money.

Meanwhile, there is a vast wealth of music available now everyday through YouTube or Grooveshark or a multitude of other places. If you say that modern music is trash, you aren't digging. We can't just go to the record store and expect to have music readily available at all times now. The music isn't just in the aisles of a store anymore. It's spread across this massive chasm we call the internet. Now, you have to look at a specific formula in order to understand this mentality that "modern music is trash":

Amount of space to search through (x) quantity of music in that space (x) time to search for music = ?

When it comes down to it, we STILL rely on word of mouth and advertising to help us find all the stuff we want to hear, the styles we want to hear. Because of the ease in creating music nowadays (through the inexpensive methods of recording music, introduction of electronic music, etc) to the ease of distributing music (through Bandcamp, ReverbNation, and multiple MULTIPLE other sources), we STILL rely on Facebook and everything else. Every single one of us doesn't even know ONE-TENTH of the music that is currently in existence.

Therefore, when someone says "most modern music is trash", they are merely able to say "most of the modern music that I have heard within this incredibly small percentage of music is trash".

So...people, get off your high horses about it. It's a vastly different landscape, and if you don't want to change your ears to evolve with the years, that's your own problem.

__________

Now, as for my own personal opinion, I think there is a lot of good music out there nowadays. Yes, you have to wade through a lot of pop brand garbage, but look at someone like Carly Rae Jepsen. It's a tragedy to see what she has become because of the success behind "Call Me Maybe". Has ANYONE here even listened to the stuff she did before that? The girl has an incredible voice and knows how to make some excellent songs. Unfortunately, she's part of a corporate machine, and now she's where she's at.

The music itself is not always the greatest, but there are some genuine artists in there that just need to break the chains of the corporate machine and fly high. Honestly, the thing that I hate the most out of the last twenty years is supergroups. Hellyeah!, Audioslave, Five Finger Death Punch, Alter Bridge, Scars on Broadway, Army of Anyone, Chickenfoot, and most recently Axewound... And the reunions. MY GOD! These bands from the '90s that meant so much to us, made fantastic music that we could carry with us through the ages and show to our children and say "this is music with meaning, with a message, with purpose, with love...enjoy it"... It's being crushed into nothing more than another corporate machine.

There are plenty of modern bands, however, that have already been going for a solid decade and continue to deliver fantastic music. Personally, a lot of them are in heavy metal, and people can say what they will about the different "core" genres some may be labeled in, but it's all metal to me. Outside of that perspective, I think we're going to see a lot of incredible music come out of the next decade.

I would implore people, however, to open their mind to new forms of music rather than being so bland. Just remember this: I am a die-hard metalhead, but I love Van Morrison, Dave Matthews Band, and Justin Timberlake's music as well. Diversity is the key to musical heaven.

@sissylion: Mumford and Sons and Porcupine Tree are just two of the hundreds of bands that I like. I take every song as it is, and most of the ones MaS's make have decent lyrics and nice melodies, I think they are particularly good at creating a driving beat and have some great crescendos in their songs. Not every band in the world has to be the most innovative thing to hit the airways. I don't really see what's so boring about them.

It's easier to make shitty music, but there's also a whole lot of creativity. Death Grips is the shit, Between the Buried and Me is the shit, The Contortionist is the shit, lots of great creative music out there. It's more diverse. But in terms of pop music, yeah, older pop music is probably better.

I'm confused though as to why people totally hate Justin Bieber, how is he so different from other pop music out there, like Ke$ha or Lady Gaga? Why such strong dislike for him?

You just need to delve a little in modern day music to find the neat stuff.

The people who rant about pop music today are the ones still listening to radio. They've never heard of the phrase "digital distribution" and only get exposed to what the corporate music industry shits out on a monthly basis.

It's obviously better now. You have a ton more music to choose from. So yeah, a lot of it is shitty, but a lot more of it is genuinely good.

This is not rocket science.

@jsnyder82: Agreed. So much more diversity now, in addition to the prevalent genres of 2-3 decades ago, which are now just in a more evolved state.

If by "modern music" you mean mainstream music, then yes, I would probably agree with that notion.

If by "modern music" you mean anything that's recent, but not necessarily popular or well known, then no. There's plenty of amazing contemporary bands and artists in the genres I enjoy.

Music is subjective, but if we're talking about lyrics alone, I feel like there is some serious decline going on here.

Music is Music some's good some's bad . Really great music though in my opinion is music that you never tire of and always feel fresh waves of energy and emotion from

Why have this discussion? Relativity. Everyone's music taste is more or less set in stone by the time they are a teenager. So when music inevitably changes around a person, they get upset about it and claim nothing is good anymore. Then it comes back in vogue and they get all entitled because they were into it before all these wannabes finally caught up. Tale as old as time. (and yeah, Simpsons made this observation well before I just did)

For example, I was playing games since I was four so by the time I was a teenager, anything not synthesized (or by The Beatles, the band my parents listened to regularly that I was introduced to during that time period), wasn't as interesting to me. Not necessarily bad, just less interesting. As such, I'm really happy with music right now as Electronic Dance Music and Dubstep and all the rest of it are all over the place. Those that were imprinted with punk and rock are pissed at present because those styles of music aren't as prevalent.

I'd also like to point out, with the arrival of the internet, music is so broad, if you can't find something good out there that fits you perfectly, the fault lies with you. It exists, you just suck at finding stuff. Get on Last.fm, or bandcamp, or soundcloud, (or whatever else, YouTube maybe?) and stop complaining. If you are judging music based on what's on your local top 40 station you have to ask yourself, why are you still listening to a radio in the year 2012?

I would say closer than most would think. The reason why a lot of people say older music is so much better is because only the good music from that era is still played. All the terrible stuff is long gone from people's memory. In 10-20 years time I doubt that songs like Friday and all that other crap will be played, making this generations music sound much better than it actually does.

yes. Music is extremely subjective though. I could see metal fans hating metal today but I feel if you find the right bands/genre you can appreciate it and at 26 I can't get any into younger bands out there.. It's probably the age difference for everyone.. no one wants to root for anyone younger but will cheer for anyone older... Just my opinion.

Look at Pachabel's Canon: arguably the first piece of popular music ever written. That one chord progression has made hit songs for The Beatles, Dire Straits, Aerosmith, U2, Lionel Richie, Oasis, The Beegees, Kylie Minogue and even bloody Green Day. The exact same formula has been manufacturing hits for centuries.

That's fine. Popular music is popular because it appeals to the common denominator. Simple, repetitive melodies and harmonies that resolve in pleasing ways. The vast majority of music listeners don't want to have to carefully listen to something to appreciate it. If crappy music is crappy because it doesn't do anything new with the art form, then popular music has pretty much always been crappy.

Back in the day, there were crappy music too (probably), but in order to make an album, the bands and singers had to get a publisher, this way on the consumer end only the good music made it to the surface.

Now that we have the internet, performers can cut out the publisher out of the equation and this is the reason why it seems that there are more shit out there than before. There is no one to select the good stuff out of the pool.

At least that's what I like to think.

There's tons of great music out there, you just have to look. As for with the past, the further from it the more we only remember what was good (except for the rare cases where something was so awful it will always stick). Come 20 years from now people will be saying the same thing, shitty on current music thinking the past was where it's at. That or you just prefer a genre where it's peak was in a different decade."Today's music is shit" is just an obvious way of telling someone you don't care enough to even look for something you may like. If by "modern music you basically just mean what's on the radio, I don't even think it's that bad, except for the generic lifeless rock that continues to exist.

Just listen to All Song Considered if you honestly think music is dead nowadays.

Silly question

I'd say more but it would probably be just parroting what this^ guy already said. With the ease in obtaining and listening to music these days, an inability to find a band doing what you like implies that either you're too lazy to look for it or your tastes are unrealistically narrow.

Though if we're talking about metal music...

I'm 14 years old. I should be into modern music like most other young teenagers my age, but ever since I got my first Ipod Nano at 9 years old I've been listening to "old" music that my parents (born in the 60s) put on there such as:

- Jimmy Barnes

- BonJovi

- I used to listen to Michael Jackson

- John Stevens

- AC/DC

- U2

- Whitesnake

- Phil Collins

- Crowded House

- Guns N' Roses

- I've done heaps of the Beatles songs on drums also

I think modern music is a waste of money. A bunch of fake sounds and fake instruments recorded in a fucking studio. And then they call it "music" and "Art". Does anyone else my age have the same opinion?

Just wondering :D

Neither.

Everyone gets to be at an age where they look at the past with rose colored glasses and starts to resent the modern. Congrats, you are grandpa shaking his cane at those darn kids and their rock n roll music.

@shadowskill11 said:

Actually there is scientific data that outright says today's pop music is worse than it was in decades previous. Here's the link. And of course, the original article from Scientific American here.

So basically, yes, there is a reason why Backstreet Boys have long since been forgotten. That same reason is why Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" still rules ass on all levels.

So many musically naive music on these boards

'People Don't Even Play REAL instruments anymore and if they do they are bad at it'

Your opinion is invalid because the have probably been 20 albums released every week on Spotify alone with people using 'REAL' instruments

There's always been a lot of garbage music. There's also been a lot of great music. If you aren't satisfied with what youre hearing, look harder.

" Is modern popular music worse?", I think would be a better question. There will always be less appreciated, or less recognized, artist whose talent far outweighs their Top 40 counterparts. It has always been that way, and always will be. For every Black Sabbath, you get 5 Bay City Rollers.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that the financial state of the modern Music Industry is dismal in comparison to what it used to be. In the mid-to-late 60's, the music industry was doing great. When they realized that the typical 50's-60's rock n' roll and Doo Wop bands were declining in popularity, they took their significant financial backing and started funding underground bands. With the rise of the civil rights movement, and the radical paradigm shift of the Hippy/Psychedelic era, they saw the landscape changing, and took a risk promoting experimental bands, hoping to find the mythical "next big thing".

And, they did.

With the world wide popularity of Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Big Brother and the Holding Company(later creating Janis Joplin's solo career), The Grateful Dead, and many, many others, the record corporations knocked it out of the park. Their risk paid off. And continued to pay off for another 30 years.

Then physical music mediums started to die, and the record corps. refused to change. Instead of embracing the changing paradigm as they did in the previous decades, they decided that they should control everything, and completely forgot about the music. Modern pop music has been reduced down to a simple formula. A formula guaranteed to make a top 40 hit. Producers, instead of encouraging and bringing out the artistic side of the musicians they are working with, are there to apply the formula. And to maintain rigidly to the formula. Because major record corporations cannot afford to risk anything. Digital music distribution, YouTube, torrenting, etc... has them by the balls. Most modern groups make far more off of live tours and merchandise than they do record sales, because more people are just downloading their music. But those people are more than willing to support the groups, just not through the outdated means of record sales and radio play. The record corps are scared. Scared of change. And with the rise of DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation), home recording, self promotion and independent record labels, the need for a major corporation record deal has become marginally less necessary than they were 25 years ago. Why kiss a giant corporations ass when you can just DIY? This frightens them immensely, and just reinforces their need for everything they produce to absolutely be a chart topping hit. No risk, no promotion for anything that isn't guaranteed to go Multi-plat, no airtime for anything but those chart toppers, and a complete saturation of the market with those same sounding, formulaic, generic pop songs, is the only way they see of maintaining profitability. Which is like in-breeding. The gene pool gets too shallow and monotonous, and the whole ball of wax goes to shit.

Also take into account that modern recording methods have greatly reduced the amount of talent one needs to be a professional musician. In the modern days of Auto tuning/pitch correction, vocal talent, in particular, has taken a nose dive. What used to be process of doing multiple takes and selecting the best performance, or re-recording tracks because you were out of key, or a little #/b, has gone out the window. Most modern music is also recorded in a completely different manner from those hits of 60s,70s, 80's and 90's. A majority of that music was recorded as a live band. If something wasn't perfect, you did it again. Over and over until it was perfect. Also, all of that stuff was recorded through analog sources, usually on 2 inch tape, that had to be hand cut and spliced to make edits. And, Analog always sounds better (download any modern DAW[Sonar, Pro Tools, etc...} and see how many plug-ins they have trying to emulate that warm tube analog sound). Digital may be "perfect audio", but what made of lot of those classic albums great were the imperfections in the recording. The small inflections, the hoarse voice of a vocalist who is putting his entire soul into every note, the actual energy of a group of artist creating something human and personal. A lot of that humanity has been edited out in the futile search for digital perfection.

Why work hard and try to produce something passionate or soulful, when you can just fix it in post with a few mouse clicks? Why spend years learning music theory, orchestration, sight singing, ear training, and arranging, when your producers and engineers can just do it for you? As long as you look pretty and have some gimmick, you've basically got it made. At least for that one chart topping single, or multi-platinum album. When that sophmore release bombs, the record company drops you like a bad habit and finds the next person to fit in the formula. Modern pop has become far more style, than substance. And even the style is getting pretty boring.

One more thing. Since the rise of Hip-Hop in the 80's-90's, there hasn't been a revolutionary new genre of African-American music for the white majority to co-opt and steal. It has happened time and again throughout American history.

Blues. Invented by African-Americans(Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters,Howlin' Wolf), and popularized by white people.(The Rolling Stones, Cream, Led Zeppelin)

Rock'n Roll. Invented by African-Americans(Chuck Berry, the real King of Rock n' Roll), and popularized by white people.(The Beach Boys, Elvis........was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me....)

R&B.....

Soul.....

Funk....

Hip-Hop....

I'm not saying that any of the white artist(with the exception of The Beach Boys) named above were purposefully stealing music, but the reinforcement and promotion of white groups performing African-American musician's songs by the record companies reeks of outright racism and greed. And thats coming from an Irish boy who performs a mix of Reggae/Ska/Hip-Hop/Punk/Metal. Not trying to say white people can't perform those types of music,(Stevie Ray Vaughan, Sublime, 311, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Beastie Boys and Eminem have proven that) just that they should know and respect where the art form originated. If you truly FEEL a certain type of music, by all means, play it. Thats the key, it has to be in your soul. In your breath. In your blood. In your sweat.

Music is about feeling, as much as it is about actual sound. Most modern artist are just in it for money and fame, not because they FEEL it. Not because they live it. Not because they love it.

Sorry for such a long post, but I'm not only a musician, I was also a Popular Music Major in college. I have been studying music since I was 6-7 years old, and the ongoing saga of popular American music fascinates me.

Is music worse or better than when this thread started?

I don't like music of today, my music collection seems to only consist of music released before the year 2000.

As many people have stated, older music seems generally better simply because we have forgotten the mediocre mainstream pop stuff and gotten it into our heads that everyone back then liked the cool music that we still remember today. For reference, here's the Billboard Hot 100 number one singles for each year of the 1970s from Wikipedia:

Other than the unassailable Simon & Garfunkel-classic, hardly the definitive songs of the decade, right? The same will be true of the music of our time. Don't worry about future generations judging us based on our silly mainstream music, nobody will remember it in 20 years.

I like Public Enemy as much as the next guy, but you should probably know that rumor isn't actually true. After all the hate and fear the media directed towards PE in the 80s and early 90s, and as upset as they were over people misrepresenting them, it's a shame to see that they did pretty much the same thing with Elvis Presley.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/presley1.asp

It's a bit like when minorities are upset whenever police mistrust or prejudge them, so they mentally assign that behavior to all police, and in turn end up mistrusting and prejudging all police officers. Kind of a hypocritical vicious cycle.

For me personally, it's infinitely better. All of my favorite artists are modern.

This is something every generation says about modern music. Good music is still and will always be out there, you just have to find it.

Came to post this. Auto-tune is something that never should've been invented.