The Real Reason Why Music Is Getting Worse

[guitfnky]

I doubt many people are pirating MP3s these days, now that as much of nearly everything ever recorded is readily available to stream—legally—for a negligible monthly cost.

[jam-s]

I think you're right about not pirating single MP3s, but instead just using tools to download/rip directly from youtube. On the other hand most popular bands have their whole discography readily available in FLAC format on the open seas (with or without their consent).
But even with those removed I highly doubt the streaming data would offer a really great statistic on the more fringe special interest music that gets consumed/enjoyed. Also quite a lot is happening on Bandcamp and I'm not sure if those sales are included in any of the charts.

[PhillipOrdonez]

I'm sorry, Slow Robot (OK?), but Fantano is 100% on the right side here...

[guitfnky]

I'm sorry, Slow Robot (OK?), but Fantano is 100% on the right side here...

I didn’t say he was wrong. I said he was an asshole.

[PhillipOrdonez]

I don’t think he was even a little bit more asshole than it was required for his response to Rick!

[avasopht]

After the invention of MP3 the charts only tell what kind of music is still consumed by people who don't know how to get the sounds without paying for them. Thus I think that the charts data doesn't have any relevance since then and getting angry or agitated about it is just stupid.

One study done on this shows otherwise.

People who "download" mp3s spent the most on physical media.

I'll bet my cleanest butter knife they make up the bulk of Spotify and tidal subscribers too.

[RobC]

I don't get the writing genres part. What new unique genres are there?

I’m guess the criticism is that long as everyone is writing genres, there are no new unique genres, to which I’d say I strongly agree.
My 2 cents…
New genres are created when artists forge new territory and are not just re-creating what is already created. But it only becomes a new genre after someone else copies it. So one artist doing it is just another crazy artist doing their own thing, while multiple artists doing it creates the new genre. When enough new artists copy the original artist, that genre is said to be “popular”. Hmmmm.

Paradox alert:
To create a new genre requires both artistic originality plus the natural human inclination to copy each other!
Now get off my lawn…

I understand that, but these "bass music", deep house, melodic house, and whatever aren't really anything special. Drum and bass was unique, Dubstep was unique, even Trap has its uniqueness.

I guess, musicians try to make themselves look unique by slapping some random new "genre" name on their music. But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre.

I'm not going to call my music scientific dance music or whatever, just because I enjoy doing "mad science".
Maybe people will call it "WTF is this?" one day.

[WOO]

let's all blame Phillip O for encouraging me on this one...

When your the king, someone is always trying to knock you off the throne. Beato is the king. Long live the king.

[PhillipOrdonez]

I’m guess the criticism is that long as everyone is writing genres, there are no new unique genres, to which I’d say I strongly agree.
My 2 cents…
New genres are created when artists forge new territory and are not just re-creating what is already created. But it only becomes a new genre after someone else copies it. So one artist doing it is just another crazy artist doing their own thing, while multiple artists doing it creates the new genre. When enough new artists copy the original artist, that genre is said to be “popular”. Hmmmm.

Paradox alert:
To create a new genre requires both artistic originality plus the natural human inclination to copy each other!
Now get off my lawn…

I understand that, but these "bass music", deep house, melodic house, and whatever aren't really anything special. Drum and bass was unique, Dubstep was unique, even Trap has its uniqueness.

I guess, musicians try to make themselves look unique by slapping some random new "genre" name on their music. But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre.

I'm not going to call my music scientific dance music or whatever, just because I enjoy doing "mad science".
Maybe people will call it "WTF is this?" one day.

Dude, you don't even know what you're saying. "Bass music" ... And whatever... "Not really unique" and then name as unique two genres that are literally bass music. Come on

Now I wanna know what you think dubstep is. I'm going to guess you only think of Skrillex and the sound he popularised when you think of dubstep?

[RobC]

I understand that, but these "bass music", deep house, melodic house, and whatever aren't really anything special. Drum and bass was unique, Dubstep was unique, even Trap has its uniqueness.

I guess, musicians try to make themselves look unique by slapping some random new "genre" name on their music. But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre.

I'm not going to call my music scientific dance music or whatever, just because I enjoy doing "mad science".
Maybe people will call it "WTF is this?" one day.

Dude, you don't even know what you're saying. "Bass music" ... And whatever... "Not really unique" and then name as unique two genres that are literally bass music. Come on

Now I wanna know what you think dubstep is. I'm going to guess you only think of Skrillex and the sound he popularised when you think of dubstep?

I think you need to cool down.

[selig]

I’m guess the criticism is that long as everyone is writing genres, there are no new unique genres, to which I’d say I strongly agree.
My 2 cents…
New genres are created when artists forge new territory and are not just re-creating what is already created. But it only becomes a new genre after someone else copies it. So one artist doing it is just another crazy artist doing their own thing, while multiple artists doing it creates the new genre. When enough new artists copy the original artist, that genre is said to be “popular”. Hmmmm.

Paradox alert:
To create a new genre requires both artistic originality plus the natural human inclination to copy each other!
Now get off my lawn…

I understand that, but these "bass music", deep house, melodic house, and whatever aren't really anything special. Drum and bass was unique, Dubstep was unique, even Trap has its uniqueness.

I guess, musicians try to make themselves look unique by slapping some random new "genre" name on their music. But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre.

I'm not going to call my music scientific dance music or whatever, just because I enjoy doing "mad science".
Maybe people will call it "WTF is this?" one day.

All of them are special and none of them are special. We only have our opinions in the end.
Why not call your music "scientific dance music"? I made up a name for my music (soundtracks in search of a film) early on. Probably could have come up with a better name. Thing is, I wasn't writing to a genre, I was following my muse. Some called my music ambient, some called it new age. Of the existing genres at the time I settled on "space music" in later years because it was two of my favorite subjects and was the closest thing to what I was doing.

Bottom line, all I'm suggesting is that if you write a 'genre' that already exists, you cannot be creating a new/unique genre.

So your opinion is that some of the new music isn't anything special, others feel differently - in the end you paraphrase my original statement which I can only assume means we agree?
Selig: So one artist doing it is just another crazy artist doing their own thing, while multiple artists doing it creates the new genre.
RobC: "But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre."

[RobC]

I understand that, but these "bass music", deep house, melodic house, and whatever aren't really anything special. Drum and bass was unique, Dubstep was unique, even Trap has its uniqueness.

I guess, musicians try to make themselves look unique by slapping some random new "genre" name on their music. But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre.

I'm not going to call my music scientific dance music or whatever, just because I enjoy doing "mad science".
Maybe people will call it "WTF is this?" one day.

All of them are special and none of them are special. We only have our opinions in the end.
Why not call your music "scientific dance music"? I made up a name for my music (soundtracks in search of a film) early on. Probably could have come up with a better name. Thing is, I wasn't writing to a genre, I was following my muse. Some called my music ambient, some called it new age. Of the existing genres at the time I settled on "space music" in later years because it was two of my favorite subjects and was the closest thing to what I was doing.

Bottom line, all I'm suggesting is that if you write a 'genre' that already exists, you cannot be creating a new/unique genre.

So your opinion is that some of the new music isn't anything special, others feel differently - in the end you paraphrase my original statement which I can only assume means we agree?
Selig: So one artist doing it is just another crazy artist doing their own thing, while multiple artists doing it creates the new genre.
RobC: "But it's usually just called experimental in the beginning. If it gets picked up, then it can be named and turned into a new genre."

I don't think there was any argument. Everyone should share their opinion freely, just in a friendly manner.

Funny story, I used to have just 4 categories for music: 1. Chill Out 2. Break Beat 3. Dance (or perhaps disco/club) 4. Drum and Bass

I only said Trap, Dubstep, and DnB were more different, because Trap has a unique approach with basically hats and hat-rolls leading the beat. Dubstep (as well as Trap) sounds rhythmically different because of snares/claps usually hitting on the 3rd beat instead of 2nd and 4th (in case of 4/4). DnB - the drums' rhythm is twice as fast as melody, or vocals.

And yes, I originally agreed with you, and the quote even expressed that, even if it was indirect.

But yes, I indeed believe that a truly new genre should be unique enough, so that even somebody whom listens to completely different genres, can easily distinguish it.
In the past rock fans called techno, trance, dance, house, etc. 'the same disco crap'.

I don't hate or am against new genres emerging, but they are rather sub genres. It's not mindblowingly different. Sure, there are differences, but... you know.

[robussc]

Why not call your music "scientific dance music"? I made up a name for my music (soundtracks in search of a film) early on. Probably could have come up with a better name. Thing is, I wasn't writing to a genre, I was following my muse. Some called my music ambient, some called it new age. Of the existing genres at the time I settled on "space music" in later years because it was two of my favorite subjects and was the closest thing to what I was doing.

Can we listen to your music on any platform? I love a bit of space music

[Tiny Montgomery]

I think Beato knows he's an old man shouting at clouds and enjoys it. He has young intelligent very musical kids who probably introduce him to a lot of stuff.

Haven't watched the vids on this thread but his interviews with the likes of George Benson, Michael Omartian, Steve Gadd, Michael Mcdonald, Bernard Purdie etc etc etc.. are more superior & insightful about music than anything I saw on TV pre internet. He has contributed something special for music listeners and makers using the internet and seems quite genuine to me.

If you make beats you can definitely get something from a long form interview with Bernard Purdie while he is sat in front of his drumkit demonstrating what he's talking about, and Beato made stuff like that that happen.

[jam-s]

I don't hate or am against new genres emerging, but they are rather sub genres. It's not mindblowingly different. Sure, there are differences, but... you know.

As cultural memes genres evolve pretty much organically in a kind of a tree with cross-pollination. These genre maps show this kind of nicely including lots of sound examples:

https://music.ishkur.com/
https://mapofmetal.com/

[RobC]

I don't hate or am against new genres emerging, but they are rather sub genres. It's not mindblowingly different. Sure, there are differences, but... you know.

As cultural memes genres evolve pretty much organically in a kind of a tree with cross-pollination. These genre maps show this kind of nicely including lots of sound examples:

https://music.ishkur.com/
https://mapofmetal.com/

I think I see things correctly then. And when I say that 90s house, dance, techno and trance aren't too far from each other, I don't say that they would be the same either. In the 90s, most of them started off with a 4/4 disco beat, programmed on a 909. I usually look at the core elements of a genre, and then decide if it's something super different.

All in all, I thought that some major game changer genres appeared, which I wasn't aware of, but truth is that: not really.

[NMHindman]

When I see these kind of arguments, I feel like it's just a matter of us not adapting to the times. The proliferation of genras/'sub'-genres or however we want to categorize them is a result of mass-publication and mass-consumption of music, due to technology that was not available even 5-10 years ago. The same with the argument that music is getting worse; it's not; it's just unfiltered, and the great music that IS being created is buried somewhere in that mass. I've said before on this forum that just yesterday we were complaining about the 'record industry' determining what we hear. Those days are gone, but now we're lamenting the trade-offs.

Perhaps the proliferation of genres and the thin line separating them is because we can all produce whatever we want now, and publish it, without having to fit into a particular genre formula. That's a good thing, because in the end who cares what the genre is if it's a great song. Of course, there's value to fitting within the limitations of a genre too.
Again, trade-offs... Let's adapt, make the best of it, and appreciate the times we're in.

[RobC]

in the end who cares what the genre is if it's a great song.

That sums up how I think, too.

And personally, I actually welcome if people try to make something different and new. I do that, too. It's another matter that I haven't put out any songs. : D But that's because I found great joy in the engineering part of music, as well as experimenting with music theory.

[avasopht]

The same with the argument that music is getting worse; it's not; it's just unfiltered, and the great music that IS being created is buried somewhere in that mass.

One major change is that there's a lot less money for live music. As a result you get much less bands that have more dedicated musicians (who are much more likely to rehearse at a concert/pro/wotever-you-want-to-call-it level).

You see a similar thing with church musicians. America has lots of highly skilled church musicians because there's so much money in it, so they can justify practicing as much as they do. It can be their primary source of income.

Bands that are paid well can spend more time practicing (and not in out of hours session because they have day jobs).


Motown had house bands. We don't have that anymore.

[NMHindman]

The same with the argument that music is getting worse; it's not; it's just unfiltered, and the great music that IS being created is buried somewhere in that mass.

One major change is that there's a lot less money for live music. As a result you get much less bands that have more dedicated musicians (who are much more likely to rehearse at a concert/pro/wotever-you-want-to-call-it level).

You see a similar thing with church musicians. America has lots of highly skilled church musicians because there's so much money in it, so they can justify practicing as much as they do. It can be their primary source of income.

Bands that are paid well can spend more time practicing (and not in out of hours session because they have day jobs).


Motown had house bands. We don't have that anymore.

But when we're talking economics, then we're talking about music as a profession, not as an art.

[PhillipOrdonez]

One major change is that there's a lot less money for live music. As a result you get much less bands that have more dedicated musicians (who are much more likely to rehearse at a concert/pro/wotever-you-want-to-call-it level).

You see a similar thing with church musicians. America has lots of highly skilled church musicians because there's so much money in it, so they can justify practicing as much as they do. It can be their primary source of income.

Bands that are paid well can spend more time practicing (and not in out of hours session because they have day jobs).


Motown had house bands. We don't have that anymore.

But when we're talking economics, then we're talking about music as a profession, not as an art.

It's all politics. Can't escape it. How do you disentangle economics from art when living under an oppressive system based on money and work for survival? Art takes time. Time is limited. Survival isn't free, you have to use your time to afford to live.

[huggermugger]

So many "genres", but they're all just variations on the same vapid theme. The nitpicking about genre is merely self-aggrandizement, an attempt to legitimize yet another piece of audio wallpaper that's not worth a second listen because there's nothing to listen to. It's all just ear candy.

[RobC]

So many "genres", but they're all just variations on the same vapid theme. The nitpicking about genre is merely self-aggrandizement, an attempt to legitimize yet another piece of audio wallpaper that's not worth a second listen because there's nothing to listen to.

If I say something like this, I get picked on for it. : P

But yeah, when I say this is the hit of the year, we certainly got a problem (or at least I got a problem : D). ...and I tried the mainstream radio and music channels...

What genre is this?

[huggermugger]

What genre is this?

I can't tell what genre it is unless it's been mastered.

[RobC]

What genre is this?

I can't tell what genre it is unless it's been mastered.

Do you ever make serious comments? : P