What Has Happened To Music ??????

[Johnny K]

Every new generation builds on and advances the previous one. Evolution moves everything forward. There is nothing wrong with music or musicians today. The problem more often than not is that a consumers personal tastes don't change and the false equivalency that because the industry is bad, the music is too.

[Mr. Paul]

I will +1 on the point that there is a huge amount of new music coming out, and not all of it can be the best. Just ask any radio station music director. So many CDs come into radio stations where the first reaction upon playing it is, "yikes."

The flip side is that the best of new music is fantastic.

We may be a bit different demographic here on AGF but my observation of the general population is that most people have the music collection they had in their mid 20's and could not care less what is coming out today.

[Wags]

Sorry, I don't have time to read the entire thread but I will respond to the OP with this anecdote.

In 1966 I was at Disneyland with a few of my teenage friends. One of the acts playing that day was Gary Lewis and the Playboys. Gary was the son of Jerry Lewis. They had another band playing behind the stage, sort of hidden by the backdrop, while Gary's "band" went through the motions in front. Even as teenagers we knew it was BS. And they still sucked.

Nowadays they just have better tech.

[walruscaesar]

Originally Posted by Wags

Sorry, I don't have time to read the entire thread but I will respond to the OP with this anecdote.

In 1966 I was at Disneyland with a few of my teenage friends. One of the acts playing that day was Gary Lewis and the Playboys. Gary was the son of Jerry Lewis. They had another band playing behind the stage, sort of hidden by the backdrop, while Gary's "band" went through the motions in front. Even as teenagers we knew it was BS. And they still sucked.

Nowadays they just have better tech.

Maybe you should have gone to Woodstock a few years later to get that horrible experience out of you. I heard it wasn't actually a real giant mouse at Disney back then either but Jerry Lewis in a costume.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

It's an interesting response to a genuine question. In today's culture the "new" is right and the old is "wrong" and anyone who prefers the old is bad. Interesting.

There's another angle to this discussion that might be more specific and might provide a more "meaty" subject to discuss: Back in the '70s I noticed a continuum between a couple of poles in the music industry. At one pole were musicians who played their music and the music was the center of their work. Onstage they basically came out and played their music and the crowd enjoyed that music and considered the music to be the point of the concert. At the other pole were performers who performed music but the music was a tool to support their performance. Their audiences came to witness an even and the music was part of it but pageantry, sets, dancing, effects, and/or costumes, were expected.

I describe this as a continuum because on one hand music was the whole point of the band and on the other, stage performance was the whole point and music was simply an element. In between the poles there were bands who crossed over into the other poles territory. I was fascinated by the continuum and tried to figure out where I wanted to fit. Once I noticed the continuum, I evaluated bands in terms of it.

What I noticed was that over time the performance aspect began to be more important than the music aspect of what is called the music industry. Was it motivated by the audience or was it simply what was offered by the record companies? I can't answer for you but I can give you an example:

In the 1990s I served as a recording engineer for a "star search" TV show put on by a record company. There were six candidate acts and one of them was going to earn a record contract. In the final round we were down to three: a singer-songwriter with an acoustic guitar, a six-piece jazz-fusion band, and a boy-girl duo who sang to tracks. The singer-songwriter was excellent. He played well, sang his excellent original songs well, and was very camera-friendly. The duo were dressed in rad, up-to-the-second, sexy clothes, and the female knew how to shake her thing. Their songs were repetitive, simple, and splashy. The jazz band was absolutely stunning. Their music was complex but accessible, they were camera-friendly and engaging, but the music was the thing. They had the audience eating out of their hand.

At the end of the competition the crew and production people stood around and opined who they thought should win and all agreed the jazz band should win by a landslide and the singer-songwriter should come in second. The studio audience was polled and had the same opinion. The judges return with their verdict: the duo won. I asked the show's producer, a friend of mine and one of the judges, how that could happen? He said, "Bobby, the jazz band didn't have a chance. The record company wasn't going to pay to travel a six-piece and they wanted performers rather than musicians."

That was in the middle of the metamorphosis I watched in the industry. It has continued to swing towards the emphasis on performance over music. Just because there are still pub bands performing (in an admittedly shrinking and challenging bar band industry) and a few music centers such as Nashville and Austin where music-centric bands thrive doesn't mean there isn't a creep in the industry towards performance-based acts. I look at country music and see it. Despite some virtuosity, I see Americana as a genre mostly based upon stage performance with fairly simple retro music.

Does that offer a little more specific detail to discuss without bashing the OP?

Bob

Your two posts in this thread are thoughtful and add something new to this often discussed subject here. I'm doing a reply/quote on this one, but both show the thought you've put into this and your ability to convey those thoughts.

Your opening statement here has already been called out as a misreading of what those who wanted to take issue with the OP's statement. To me, they're right to disagree with your characterization in your opening paragraph--but to read you fully and respectfully I think you are making a more nuanced and thoughtful point.

The predominance of showmanship, personal attractiveness and spectacle present in some acts presentation can bother me too. This (spectacle) is and should be part of the thing, but when it becomes too large a part of the thing in the absence of the other artistic components, the result usually doesn't work for me--and to the degree that I'm sure about what's "good for people" I'm not sure it's good for the audience, or for the art.

But then I enjoy some genres like acoustic jazz and "classical music" where the elements of showmanship are much more restrained than Humble Pie or Led Zep (who I also happen to like). Jazz and classical were not the most popular musical art forms in the 1970s which the OP was presenting as a golden era. Also my memory of some concerts as Zep and Sabbath etc moved to civic center and stadium size venues (not theaters) later in the decade were not all golden and pleasant audience experiences. Thrown bottles and firecrackers, some significant issues with over indulgence in various chemicals.

Given that you record music, it's natural that you rate the musicianship highly verses showmanship, as there is no dancing, costumes, lights, personal beauty, stage sets or shaking body parts registered on a recording.

It is hard to filter out the subjective elements, given that generations get imprinted on the music of their youth, to remove that filter and make an accurate objective observation here, but yes it's possible that there was a lower percentage mix of spectacle to organic musicianship in some eras most popular performing acts. I'm not sure the 1970's was a high point for "Just play the music," but I do sometimes feel that now is worse. But semi-popular music now still offers a lot of pleasures, more than I have the money and time to pursue.

Going back to the OP's point as I read it. I do find it remarkable to look at the typical triple bills in sub 2000 seat theaters in 1967-1971 in some major metro areas and think what a wonderful age it was. But that's also saying that it was a smaller scene then and the zeitgeist of a popular inhaled organic chemical did seem to encourage longer audience attention spans.

[CaptRedbeard]

Music is going through an odd transition right now. The old bands, Stones, Journey, Eagles, U2 etc are still the big concert draws but the new rock bands don't get the air play, like others have said. Without promotion they stay local and market themselves. There are also some singers doing some kind of new pop/soul fusion where they sing only in the upper register and/or wander around trying to find a note. This music is a result of a lack of direction in the industry which is focused on short term profits rather than long term success like those bands I mentioned before. It is as well, a matter of enjoying what your are singing rather than just screaming. On a positive note, there are some truly talented voices that just need time to develop, learn, and to find an audience.
If I have been unclear, ask yourself this; When was the last time you found yourself humming a tune from last weeks top ten list. BTW Can you even name the top ten songs from last week?........Didn't think so.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by CaptRedbeard

Music is going through an odd transition right now. The old bands, Stones, Journey, Eagles, U2 etc are still the big concert draws but the new rock bands don't get the air play, like others have said. Without promotion they stay local and market themselves. There are also some singers doing some kind of new pop/soul fusion where they sing only in the upper register and/or wander around trying to find a note. This music is a result of a lack of direction in the industry which is focused on short term profits rather than long term success like those bands I mentioned before. It is as well, a matter of enjoying what your are singing rather than just screaming. On a positive note, there are some truly talented voices that just need time to develop, learn, and to find an audience.
If I have been unclear, ask yourself this; When was the last time you found yourself humming a tune from last weeks top ten list. BTW Can you even name the top ten songs from last week?........Didn't think so.

I think your second part is a compelling argument.

The first part doesn't really make much sense to me. Vocally wandering around in the upper registers is not any indication of musical quality or talent (BTW I also dislike that vocal style). It's not about short term versus long term goals. No one can judge whether a screamer enjoys what they are singing or not.

The overall delivery of music has massively changed. Bands don't get "airtime" because there aren't a small controlling group of music-industry-execs deciding who gets played. It's now an open-source model where everyone has everything out there. Also, music is no longer driven by airtime. "Airtime" is irrelevant to the music industry. Music is listened to "on demand" via streaming apps and social media. Airplay is obsolete.

[fazool]

The OP suggested that since the 70's, there are few real singers and talent and quality have declined.

I maintain that nothing could be further from the truth. Just scrolling through some highlights from the 80's 90's and 2000's:

Ann Wilson: greatest female rock voice in history
Pat Benatar: four-octave range opera singer turned rock
Dolores O-Riordan: Trained in Gregorian chant
Whitney Houston: often teferred to as the greatest female voice in human history
Norah Jones: youngster who swept the Grammy's with blues and soul
Christina Aguilera: I don't like her style but regarded as possibly better than Whitney Houston
Maria Carey: I don't like her style but she is remarkably talented vocally and popular
Adele: Juggernaut of female vocal accolades and success
Idina Menzel: Broadway, movies and top songs


I, literally, made that list off the top of my head and am certainly forgetting tons. I can not think of a single pop singer from the 50's, 60's or 70's who is even in the same vocal-talent league as the list I just wrote.

[tbeltrans]

This has been, and is, an interesting thread, certainly far better than I expected it wound turn out.

In reading through and keeping up with it, I am seeing that folks are experiencing and reacting to a much more complex (at least from the consumer's perspective) musical environment.

When I was growing up, we had Top 40 radio stations, of which there were two: KRLA and KHJ in LA. We had Wolf Man Jack on XERB. We also had a bunch of lower powered FM stations in the area playing the non-Top 40 stuff, what was often referred to as "underground" radio. That is where we heard the really interesting music. At night on AM, we could get long distance radio such as "Bleeker Street" from a station in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The delivery was simple. You heard it on the radio and then went to the record store and bought it. The various bands were actively performing concerts that one could go see.

All of that delivery was focused and driven by the record companies, who decided for us what was "good" and what was not. Here is where you hear new music, here is where you buy it. The upside of that was that it was simple and everybody was listening pretty much to the same stuff. This made for big stars. It was an environment where a phenomenon such as The Beatles could happen because that was what was on the radio, so that is what we all heard. The downside was that if an act was not considered as having star potential, the average consumer would probably never hear it. For me, this became a less than desirable situation because, as I grew up, my musical tastes tended to not match the popular mainstream.

Today, anybody can get his or her music to the public inexpensively via the internet, so there is much more music available and clamoring for our attention. Today, The Beatles would probably be a blip in a big ocean of music, like just one table in a huge flea market. However, if you enjoy certain types of music that the record companies would not be able to see big profits from, you can still find as much of it as you want by dealing directly with the artists. In the process, you will likely become exposed to much music you might not have previously considered.

If "talent" people here are referring to natural ability rather than developed skill, then I would think that the distribution of it across a given population wouldn't have suddenly changed from when we older folks were growing up. Instead, we are probably not recognizing it in the musical styles that are popular today that we don't relate to, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, we can still find it also in whatever music we like. We just have to look for it.

One style of music I enjoy both listening to and playing is contemporary solo piano. Last night, I did one of my periodic "google" sessions and found a couple of artists in that style that I had not heard from prior to yesterday. I was able to go directly to their web sites, listen to samples of their music, and purchase not only MP3 albums that I wanted, but also the sheet music for those albums as download PDFs. The money for these purchases went directly to the artists on their sites, and I got what I wanted immediately for download.

I am also able to exchange emails with the artists directly, if they wish to do so. Some do, some don't. But that kind of connection is certainly preferable to sitting half a mile from the stage watching the artists on a monitor and then having them whisked away in a limousine or helicopter. In some ways, the consumer/artist connection can be much more personal today.

I have "attended" concerts by some of my favorite solo contemporary piano players by watching live online. The ticket price is quite low and the site provides an active "chat" so that you can make requests and comments in real time as the concert progresses. The artist has an assistant handling the chat and feeding information to the artist between songs, so the artist communicates directly to both the local and global audience. I avoid the traffic jams and crowds, and watch on my Ultrabook from the comfortable of my recliner, and I can request a song or ask a question and the artist will respond. Many of these concerts later become available to view in the entirety on YouTube, placed there by the artist and/or whoever produced the concert.

Personally, I like that business model and I sincerely hope that the artists using that model are able to make a go of it. I don't subscribe to streaming music sites, instead still preferring to shop via google to find the artists that interest me, so that I am buying their albums directly, typically for $9.99 each. Therefore, it may well be that my comments won't apply to those trying to make a go of it via the streaming channels, or whose music is on sites easily pirated. I have no idea about that.

Tony

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by fazool

The OP suggested that since the 70's, there are few real singers and talent and quality have declined.

I maintain that nothing could be further from the truth. Just scrolling through some highlights from the 80's 90's and 2000's:

Ann Wilson: greatest female rock voice in history
Pat Benatar: four-octave range opera singer turned rock
Dolores O-Riordan: Trained in Gregorian chant
Whitney Houston: often rteferred to as the greatest female voice in human history
Norah Jones: youngster who swept the Grammy's with blues and soul
Christina Aguilera: I don't like her style but regarded as possibly better than Whitney Houston
Maria Carey: I don't like her style but she is remarkably talented vocally and popular
Adele: Juggernaut of female vocal accolades and success
Idina Menzel: Broadway, movies and top songs


I, literally, made that list off the top of my head and am certainly forgetting tons. I can not think of a single pop singer from the 50's, 60's or 70's who is even in the same vocal-talent league as the list I just wrote.

I agree the talent was and is still out there. But I don't agree that there was not the same kind of talent prior to your list perhaps it is just subjective but ---- Elvis, Sinatra, Nat King Cole , Jackie DeShannon . Aretha Franklin, Patti Page just to name a very few, IMO were just as talented . Lets not forget that each decade also brought significant advances in the recording and playback medium. Another often quoted specious mantra is the the vintage equipment had a "better" sound when I think the reality is it just had a familiar sound

I think the other thing related in CaptRedbeard's post and what has changed, is the corporate conglomerate formulaic approach to top 40 radio. And part of that formula is they no longer seem interested in any long term multi album development deals.

[GuitaristBaldy]

Originally Posted by fazool

The OP suggested that since the 70's, there are few real singers and talent and quality have declined.

I maintain that nothing could be further from the truth. Just scrolling through some highlights from the 80's 90's and 2000's:

Ann Wilson: greatest female rock voice in history
Pat Benatar: four-octave range opera singer turned rock
Dolores O-Riordan: Trained in Gregorian chant
Whitney Houston: often teferred to as the greatest female voice in human history
Norah Jones: youngster who swept the Grammy's with blues and soul
Christina Aguilera: I don't like her style but regarded as possibly better than Whitney Houston
Maria Carey: I don't like her style but she is remarkably talented vocally and popular
Adele: Juggernaut of female vocal accolades and success
Idina Menzel: Broadway, movies and top songs


I, literally, made that list off the top of my head and am certainly forgetting tons. I can not think of a single pop singer from the 50's, 60's or 70's who is even in the same vocal-talent league as the list I just wrote.

You never heard of Elvis?

[walruscaesar]

Originally Posted by fazool

The OP suggested that since the 70's, there are few real singers and talent and quality have declined.

I maintain that nothing could be further from the truth. Just scrolling through some highlights from the 80's 90's and 2000's:

Ann Wilson: greatest female rock voice in history
Pat Benatar: four-octave range opera singer turned rock
Dolores O-Riordan: Trained in Gregorian chant
Whitney Houston: often teferred to as the greatest female voice in human history
Norah Jones: youngster who swept the Grammy's with blues and soul
Christina Aguilera: I don't like her style but regarded as possibly better than Whitney Houston
Maria Carey: I don't like her style but she is remarkably talented vocally and popular
Adele: Juggernaut of female vocal accolades and success
Idina Menzel: Broadway, movies and top songs


I, literally, made that list off the top of my head and am certainly forgetting tons. I can not think of a single pop singer from the 50's, 60's or 70's who is even in the same vocal-talent league as the list I just wrote.

Those are all good solid singers but not even close to the voices of the 50's, 60's and 70's. To be honest I doubt you've heard music before the 80's if that's the best you've heard that you listed and can't list these names like Lennon and McCartney, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, Janis Joplin, Smokey Robinson, Everly Brothers, Temptations, Tina Turner, Dusty Springfield, Aretha Franklin, Drifters, Jim Morrison, Roy Orbison, Marvin Gaye, Crosby, Stills and Nash, David Bowie, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkel, Little Richard, BB King, Shirelles, O'Jays, Bee Gees, Carly Simon, Jim Croce and that's a tiny fraction of talent from the past who had the most distinctive music and voices that won't be matched again.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by walruscaesar

Those are all good solid singers but not even close to the voices of the 50's, 60's and 70's. To be honest I doubt you've heard music before the 80's if that's the best you've heard that you listed and can't list these names like Lennon and McCartney, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, Janis Joplin, Smokey Robinson, Everly Brothers, Temptations, Tina Turner, Dusty Springfield, Aretha Franklin, Drifters, Jim Morrison, Roy Orbison, Marvin Gaye, Crosby, Stills and Nash, David Bowie, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkel, Little Richard, BB King, Shirelles, O'Jays, Bee Gees, Carly Simon, Jim Croce and that's a tiny fraction of talent from the past who had the most distinctive music and voices that won't be matched again.

I get your appreciation for a certain time period, but claiming great performers' voices from the 50s through the 70s won't be matched again is absurd. There wasn't anything in the air or water that made those three decades suddenly give rise to exceptional singers and suddenly extinguish the world's ability to create new exceptional singers when 1980 came around. It is also an extraordinary coincidence that those three decades happen to correspond to the music your parents liked.

Singing talent isn't like black rhinos or Brazilian rosewood. There's new talent being born every day.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by walruscaesar

Those are all good solid singers but not even close to the voices of the 50's, 60's and 70's. To be honest I doubt you've heard music before the 80's if that's the best you've heard that you listed and can't list these names like Lennon and McCartney, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, Janis Joplin, Smokey Robinson, Everly Brothers, Temptations, Tina Turner, Dusty Springfield, Aretha Franklin, Drifters, Jim Morrison, Roy Orbison, Marvin Gaye, Crosby, Stills and Nash, David Bowie, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkel, Little Richard, BB King, Shirelles, O'Jays, Bee Gees, Carly Simon, Jim Croce and that's a tiny fraction of talent from the past who had the most distinctive music and voices that won't be matched again.

Again, there's no arguing those are great singers and performers, but I don't know how you can say their are no equals to them since. There are plenty of performers which are at least as good.

You're letting nostalgia get in the way of objectiveness. We all do it to some extent.

[jessupe]

there are so many different aspects to this "question" I contend again that the "buisness" part of music is what has changed the most, not so much the talent or musicianship.

Along these lines we can not dismiss the radio and the part it played in the business.

Related to radio, related to songs and over all radio play; there was/is an entire industry within the industry that focused/focuses on the studying of psychological aspects related to earworm marketing, target audience and all that.

The radio, then mtv were huge "musical brainwashers" that would literally seek to "program" their target audiences using all kinds of 'tricks"

A good song is a good song, but a good song that had been ordained by the industry and thus radio, played so you would here it 10 times a day, everyday for 6 months {certain songs like "more than a feeling" are still played on "classic rock" almost as much to this day} is a different thing.

When they had control of the "system" they had the ability to and did use these "beat it into your brain" methods, which by all accounts are "brainwashing tactics" that are and were very effective and achieving the desired outcome...

play it on the radio, get you hooked on the songs, go to record store and buy the album...that is whats missing to me

So us old farts from the radio days got a heavy dose of musical koolaid,that was rather tasty, but was koolaid none the less.

Funny thing is I guess that it's still koolaid today, but seems to have a lethal effect on old dudes

Here's some new classic for the geezers