is old music killing new music?

[Benjo]

If we're talking about rock and pop music I think at this point both genres are pretty much running out of ideas. It was easier to sound fresh and exciting 30 or 40 years ago but it's kind of limited in how long it can live because it's pretty conservative musically unlike classical or jazz so how much longer can it keep going and sounding new? That would explain why so many younger people listen to bands from the "golden ages" of the 60s and the 70s.

[catdaddy]

I understand that human beings have always seemed to be drawn to the familiar when making music selections. But, does anyone else think that the illness induced stress that humanity has had to cope with over the past two years might have caused an even greater shift of listening tendencies towards the comfort of more familiar music, which might account for the more recent steep decline in the popularity of new music. Just a thought.

[fazool]

Interesting because I see a lot of new music out there so I wonder if this is an accurate assessment.

Plus old music has the accumulation of market penetration and new music becomes old music but still sells.

But....if it is true, then its good nes for me since I am in a classic rock band

[Mandobart]

I've read all the comments so far but not the original Atlantic article. Lots of good points made so far, and fun stories.

Some things I've noticed on the subject, some of which were already touched on:

1. This topic is usually focused on the prevalent genres dominating the US/UK/Canadian/Australian music consumption market today - pop and American Country music. I don't hear a lot of this new vs old discussion in world music, Gypsy Jazz, choro, blues, bluegrass (well I'll confess this old vs new does come up there some), classical, etc. Why is this discussion such a big deal for a couple genres and not for others? Sheer number of consumers?

2. The music from our generation got absorbed into popular western culture in ways never seen before. That gave it some serious staying power, particularly with a huge boomer generation to finance it.

3. All aspects of the music industry - production, distribution, marketing, consumption, reproduction, collection - have changed in ways no one predicted.

4. People are getting exposed to the existing catalog of published popular music in a variety of ways. My grown kids both watch an anime where the characters are named after classic popular songs, and they end each episode with one of the songs. My kids recently were going on about Pat Metheny's "Last Train Home" after hearing it on this show. That's a great song that hasn't been played on commercial radio for many years, gaining a new audience using a non-traditional format.

When we were kids we only had radio and a handful of music oriented TV shows.

5. There are just a few people here on the AGF that are actually in careers in the music industry. Most of us play at home. Some play a few originals and covers
for a limited audience. I think its safe to say we're all music consumers.

But (IMO) there is a larger slice of the population that isn't into music that much at all. And as other forms of entertainment multiply that slice is getting bigger.

[1neeto]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

I understand that human beings have always seemed to be drawn to the familiar when making music selections. But, does anyone else think that the illness induced stress that humanity has had to cope with over the past two years might have caused an even greater shift of listening tendencies towards the comfort of more familiar music, which might account for the more recent steep decline in the popularity of new music. Just a thought.

Very interesting point of view. Also the guitar sales boom will only make all those new players to gravitate towards a time when guitar music was the most popular music.

[ewalling]

All artistic genres rise, have their moment, and then fall. They eventually become too complex, too esoteric, or simply too unoriginal, uninspired and repetitive. The rock-pop genre as most of us here knew it died a long time ago, in my view.

[Bob Womack]

I wonder if perhaps the study indicates that new music is actually killing itself, since old music is still being consumed?

Bob

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I wonder if perhaps the study indicates that new music is actually killing itself, since old music is still being consumed?

That may be happening indirectly. We are in the era of Garage Band and similar apps that allow music to be recorded and published without having been vetted by a record label. Look at the number of Soundcloud recordings that are made available for free here on AGF. Some are quite good, of course, and a few are absolutely cringeworthy.

In the day of vinyl records, it took an entire industry to go from the microphone to the consumable product. Even then, a song wasn't a hit until it was played repeatedly on the radio. By the time a song made it to the playlist of a top-40 station in the sixties or seventies, it had crossed over many hurtles, each time being vetted by the music industry--those who would invest in the song's production--and the consumers. But we all knew what was popular, and we were all engrossed in the process of another hit coming out.

There's so much out there at present, and such a volume of genres, that it's unlikely that there will ever again be a music mainstream the way there was half a century ago.

[SingingSparrow]

Originally Posted by bufflehead

That may be happening indirectly. We are in the era of Garage Band and similar apps that allow music to be recorded and published without having been vetted by a record label. Look at the number of Soundcloud recordings that are made available for free here on AGF. Some are quite good, of course, and a few are absolutely cringeworthy.

In the day of vinyl records, it took an entire industry to go from the microphone to the consumable product. Even then, a song wasn't a hit until it was played repeatedly on the radio. By the time a song made it to the playlist of a top-40 station in the sixties or seventies, it had crossed over many hurtles, each time being vetted by the music industry--those who would invest in the song's production--and the consumers. But we all knew what was popular, and we were all engrossed in the process of another hit coming out.

There's so much out there at present, and such a volume of genres, that it's unlikely that there will ever again be a music mainstream the way there was half a century ago.

this is interesting to me because i remember similar discussions in the early 2000s with friends and mfa professors about the ubiquity of prose and poetry that the internet and writing forums have spurred. i remember being worried about the 'quality' of writing in the future. when rupi kaur's poetry became popular years later, i felt my fears were being confirmed. you ever seen the movie idiocracy? kaur to me felt as if she were a part of that script, as hyperbole, that now has escaped into reality... cringeworthy indeed.

i now wonder what the merit is to this kind of thinking. i wonder now if it is a limited and judgmental perspective of art that limits my own access to it - and while this is something i myself am party to (and is more or less a normal human response), i think there is benefit to me (as a writer/artist) to practice more openness when i encounter the efforts of others - i do believe this leads to less self judgement and more permission and therefore more authenticity.

all that said, your point is well taken in the context of how the creation and consumption of music/art has changed.

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by SingingSparrow

this is interesting to me because i remember similar discussions in the early 2000s with friends and mfa professors about the ubiquity of prose and poetry that the internet and writing forums have spurred. i remember being worried about the 'quality' of writing in the future. when rupi kaur's poetry became popular years later, i felt my fears were being confirmed. you ever seen the movie idiocracy? kaur to me felt as if she were a part of that script, as hyperbole, that now has escaped into reality... cringeworthy indeed.

i now wonder what the merit is to this kind of thinking. i wonder now if it is a limited and judgmental perspective of art that limits my own access to it - and while this is something i myself am party to (and is more or less a normal human response), i think there is benefit to me (as a writer/artist) to practice more openness when i encounter the efforts of others - i do believe this leads to less self judgement and more permission and therefore more authenticity.

all that said, your point is well taken in the context of how the creation and consumption of music/art has changed.

As someone who has also gone through the MFA process, I can only say in retrospect that I'm glad that most of my early writing went unpublished. I learned a great deal from it, and although rejection is always painful, it was the crucible that turned me into a writer who could publish a series of peer-reviewed books with one of the top university presses in the country.

I hear what you're saying about the need for openness when encountering the efforts of others. As a university writing instructor it was also important to be able to honestly evaluate the work of students and be able to tell them where it fell short.

When I earned my MFA there was no such thing as a blog. One had little choice but to write for established journals, and in the publish-or-perish career into which I entered it was understood that a piece of writing would need to be revised extensively, draft after draft, in order to get published. This ultimately made the work better; the writing had to sparkle. The blogosphere is changing that--now all an author needs to be considered successful is a large number of followers. One way to accomplish this is to write well, but that's one avenue of many.

You are correct to point out the similarities between this situation in terms of writing and music. I suspect that all the fine arts are being changed dramatically by the ability to self-publish. And the more artists take such a road toward self-expression, the more dilute the arts will become. The time when we would all listen to the same songs is past.

[FrankHudson]

I read the Atlantic article before this thread, and I haven't had time to go back to it. I do recall it being interesting and thoughtful. The thread has a lot of the oft expressed "new music now is just objectively not good, and back in my day (most often 30-55 years ago) it was much better" but Gioia's Atlantic article had some rather focused points, and remember Gioia for example was saying things have changed in the last few years in this regard, not simply that things/music where better in 1972 or whatever. Right in the second paragraph it's pointed out that "The 200 most popular new tracks now regularly account for less than 5 percent of total streams. That rate was twice as high just three years ago. " (my boldface).

I think GlennWillow's point about the 10% Sturgeon's Law survivors building up and in effect putting a team of "all stars" on the field against a "regular team" has validity (though it generally didn't help the 1930-50 music of my parent's generation once R&B and rock took hold). How many of us circa 1970 were whistling the hits of 1940 (30 year old music then)? Here's a list of them per Billboard for the 40s. I still think Glenn has a good point, but it doesn't seem to have always worked that way.

SingingSparrow's point was a little hard for me to follow in detail (sorry, scattered mind tonight) but I agree with their thrust I think. The music technology/distribution methods of 1940 and 1970 was nearly the same (TV was added, but "radio with pictures"). Changes from 1970 until the last part of the 90s were not huge either, and then the things we call "The Internet" became a big factor, until now streaming is the really the mainstream.

Someone upthread made the valid point that we have a much more expanded and fractured entertainment industry now. We're all can/could/are our own little studios, radio stations, magazines, at will -- and many have willed to do that. That makes it very much more difficult to have an Elvis or Beatles on Ed Sullivan or even Nirvana or Michael Jackson on MTV. Cultural capital and attention is decentralized. That's another of Gioia's observations, and that's my working theory of why that so. Beato thinks it's still possible for something to accrue: a new big unavoidable new musical thing. Maybe it is, but it's harder to do I think.

I think in the last decade or so streaming (more so the ripping/Napster era's more modest effect) changed things. To a large part we don't play ala carte for music we wish to listen to at will anymore. I think that's huge. The $3 or $4 I had to pay for a new LP meant I was committed to it in my youth. In constant dollars I pay much less per month than that to hear nearly everything one could find in most every record store in the country in 1970, anywhere, with a handy search function. How can this not change how committed I am to music choices?

Gioia (and Rick Beato in his video) make points about the music business not developing artists anymore. I think both assume this is a cause, not a symptom of how the market listener/consumer-wise has changed from this. They may know more than I do, or they may be blinded by being too close and personally invested in old ways they liked or understood, but this observer thinks it's likely a system-wide symptom of that new distribution/listening model that took a few years to complete its effect.

But back to the led of Gioia article, the question of what happened in the past 3 years that changed the model from what it was in 2018 (when the identical complaints about "new music is all crap" would have been made). There seems to me to be an obvious cause that must be dealt with: live music was the leaky lifeboat a lot of working musicians jumped into when recording revenue and record promotion became obsolete. Yes, the big tours were often legacy artists, reunion of the original lineup, or "play the whole classic album in concert" events, but there was still something beyond that let some make a hardscrabble living from -- and that was their promotion too. In the all you can eat buffet of a streaming era, you still might pay to see someone live, develop a significant connection, become committed fans, talk them up to your friends (electrical and otherwise). For the last two years live music has been severely hampered. How well will it bounce back? Predictions are hard, particular about the future as the saying goes.

Maybe I'm missing something, but did Gioia deal with that change in live music? I know Beato didn't even mention it because I just watched his video today. Not that they aren't smart, informed people. But in regard to the very latest part of this changing and breaking wave of how we relate to music culturally, doesn't one have to account for that?

[tinnitus]

Originally Posted by rmp

I think new music is doing a pretty good job killing itself actually.

Since there is no "like" button, I'll just add a +1 to rmp’s observation.

My dad, a dynamically gifted artist, writer, musician and story-teller, shared an anecdote about humor when I was a kid. “There are really only 7 jokes.” He meant that, at its core, everything funny tends to be a variable on basic themes. The rest is flavoring, context, timing and charisma. Some wonderful artists have it. And some don’t, cranking out repetitive re-samples of what was well-received last week, and the week before, and the week before...

Still comparing music to comedy, everyone with or without talent has a microphone and a global platform upon which to perform. I find that a huge percentage of what is being shoveled at consumers this century is insipid re-cycled product. I don’t speak in absolutes, because there are some great musicians (and comics) still making fine music (and humor). Albeit, needles in haystacks IMHO.

Back to music. Sgt. Pepper was new, innovative and exciting. We had heard nothing like it. Charismatic artists? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

In comparison, too many current hits sound not only derivative, but seem a mere re-shuffling of the same dozen Lego pieces from any given genre (‘new country,' R&B, boy bandz, rap, wailing divas, etc).

Also, partially to blame is i-cloud related electronica pumping out sound everywhere 24/7. Standing at the gas pump, shopping/dining, ski slopes, waiting for a doctor, 5-10 second soundbites between batters, idling at a red light, public restrooms...

Content-wise, songs/albums the article characterized as "old music" were actually breaking some new ground when they first came out on the radio. Make no mistake, 60s-70s music largely borrowed from other styles that came before. But those styles were not already inescapably run into the ground wherever we ventured day/night. So even if (for instance) Led Zep scooped up huge chunks of other musicians' classic blues music (also derivative), it was exciting, re-packaged in innovative ways. Thus, it was, in fact, new and different to most listeners/consumers.

Fast-forward 50-60 years. Much (not all) of what's being recorded today has already been heard thousands of times over, broadcast everywhere, then re-re-resampled and run into the ground again before it even 'drops' on the interweb. Unless I go digging, which I do, it seems the industry power-brokers and star-makers have scant little to offer that sounds fresh or pleasing – to me anyway.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

Since there is no "like" button, I'll just add a +1 to rmp’s observation.

My dad, a dynamically gifted artist, writer, musician and story-teller, shared an anecdote about humor when I was a kid. “There are really only 7 jokes.” He meant that at its core, everything funny tends to be a variable on basic themes. The rest is flavoring, context, timing and charisma. Some wonderful artists have it. And some don’t, cranking out repetitive re-samples of what was well-received last week, and the week before, and the week before...

Still comparing music and comedy, everyone with or without talent has a microphone and a global platform upon which to perform. I find that a huge percentage of what is being shoveled at consumers this century is insipid re-cycled product. I don’t speak in absolutes, because there are some great musicians (and comics) still making fine music (and humor). Albeit, needles in haystacks IMHO.

Back to music. Sgt. Pepper was new, innovative and exciting. We had heard nothing like it. Charismatic artists? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

In comparison, too many current hits sound not only derivative, but seem a mere re-shuffling of the same dozen Lego pieces from any given genre (‘new’ country, R&B, boy bandz, rap, wailing divas, etc).

Also, partially to blame is i-cloud related electronica pumping out sound everywhere 24/7. Standing at the gas pump, shopping/dining, ski slopes, waiting for a doctor, 5-10 second soundbites between batters, idling at a red light, public restrooms...

Content-wise, what the article characterized as "old music" was actually breaking some “new” ground when it first came out on the radio. Make no mistake, it too was largely borrowed from other styles of music that preceded it. But those styles were not already inescapably run into the ground wherever we ventured day/night. So even if (for instance) Led Zep scooped up huge chunks of other musicians' classic blues music (also derivative), it was exciting, re-packaged in innovative ways. Thus, it was, in fact, new and different to most listeners/consumers.

Fast-forward 50-60 years, and much (not all) of what's being recorded today has already been heard thousands of times over, broadcast everywhere, then re-re-resampled and run into the ground again before it even 'drops' on the interweb. Unless I go digging, which I do, it seems the industry power-brokers and star-makers have scant little to offer that sounds fresh or pleasing – to me anyway.

But, there is innovative music being made today. You just don't hear it on the radio. Have you ever heard of Jacob Collier, for example?

[tinnitus]

Yes I have, the radio is only a tiny fraction of what I listen to. Like I said, I don't speak in absolutes, and I did acknowledge that some quality music is currently happening. Not all new music sucks - just most of the ubiquitous product that's pushed at the masses. Thus, I'm always digging and looking for what pleases me.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by generalliamsayn

We have a lot of employees who are in their early 20's and, from what I've observed, they're more into stuff like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Dead than current music (with some exceptions, like Tame Impala).

Sidestepping the debate about the relative merits of new music vs. old, I'm just constantly amused by how listening to your parents' generation's music is no longer seen as uncool like it was when I was that age.

My youngest son is 26 and listens to Led Zeppelin on a regular basis.