The Best Era Ever for New Music is... Right Now.

No offense but I have almost zero interest in new music - I have tons of music from the 60's to 90's to listen to and still much more to discover. To me an undiscovered psych/bubblegum gem from the 60's is "new" music & to me much more interesting than anything that's being produced now. I think the age thing is correct but I read somewhere that it was 35 - which makes sense as that's roughly the last time I got into new music. For example Radiohead are one of my top 5 bands.

 

Five or six times for an album to "click"? No thanks.

 

I'm not sure what logic you're referring to. A blanket statement is a blanket statement and by definition is flawed. If someone were making a positive blanket statement about new music: for instance, saying, "I think all new music is great!" that would be equally flawed. However, I've yet to see anyone say anything like that on this forum.

 

I think the mistake you're making is judging today's music by what is released via mainstream avenues and major record labels. As has been pointed out, in today's music scene you get out of it exactly what you put in. If you're passionate about finding incredible new music, there is more of it than you can ever find time to listen to.

 

I get it. And, those type of positive over-the-top posts extolling just about any new music is here -- I kid you not.

 

then I feel sorry for you. The best art takes time to unfold. Anyway...I can see this going down a road I don't care to travel. I have the new Sloan to play and I have no idea whether or not I'm going to like it but I'm going to give it a fair chance...enjoy!

 

How do you know that it's more interesting than anything that's being produced now? Are you trying as hard to find modern music you like as you are trying to find undiscovered psych/bubblegum music? I would be surprised if you tried at all considering you said "I have almost zero interest in new music."

Don't get me wrong. I think that discovering old music that I love is just as rewarding as finding new music that I love.

 

The bands I listed (to name just a few) in the OP "click" on the very first listen, I can assure you. At least to anyone who truly appreciates and recognizes beautifully composed and produced, innovative music. If you're not finding great new music and musical acts to listen to constantly, then you're clearly and demonstrably not as passionate about music as those who are always searching and looking to expand their musical horizons.

There is nothing wrong with that, not everybody is going to be equally passionate about music.

 

I don't see it, do you mean positive over-the-top posts about specific artists or albums? Because that's not a blanket statement. Also, if you think over the top positivity is as annoying as over-the-top negativity and closed-mindedness is depressing then I feel sorry for you.

 

Leaving jazz out of this and considering only pop music recorded since 1960—a necessity if the thread is going to have any chance at coherence—I believe that the general quality of musicianship and songwriting in pop music nowadays is superior to that of what preceded it. And why shouldn't it be? Each generation stands on the shoulders of those who came before them. (Geniuses may have existed in greater numbers in earlier times, but that's a different topic.)

 

You mean passionate about the music you like. All of this is your opinion. You make it sound that all the artists you mention will click with everybody...or else there is something wrong with them. This is simply stuff you like....and you think everyone should like it too.

I'm still discovering new music from the 50's-'70's.

 

I definitely will, on your recommendation.

 

I don't mean "passionate about music I like." I mean passionate about discovering new music; the artists I mention are irrelevant. If you're not constantly discovering new music, then you obviously are not passionate about discovering new music. (Which makes you both disingenuous and hypocritical if you're criticizing new music). This is not a matter of opinion; it's common sense.

I constantly discover new music from all eras. I certainly don't think all of the artists I mention will click with everyone. Obviously they won't click with anyone who insists that the last great song was written in 1974. These are all great artists worth listening to, so if NONE of them click... it says way more about the listener than the artists.

 

Here is what you said.

So, you are throwing out a list of stuff you like and assuring us all it will click on the first listen. And if they don't...they don't "recognize beautifully composed and produced, innovative music."

Why not let people like the music they like? No matter from what era...no matter how many times they play it?

 

Exactly. I work video recording music, in a wide range of genres. And if I weren't open to hearing new (to me) music, I could not do my job.

I fear this will never be resolved, and that nobody who insists that no music recorded after a particular date is any good will ever admit that the fault lies in themselves rather than music.

 

Why? Because there are as many amazing talented artists now as at any time in history. And a valid case was made in the original post that, due to various factors, they have more chance to be recorded than at any other time in history. Sam Phillips isn't necessary today, as anyone can buy the equipment to record the next Elvis for a couple of hundred dollars. One of my favorite artists, Todd Rundgren - a legendary record producer - produced his last few albums on a laptop. He recorded everything with a single USB microphone from AKG (admittedly a very nice USB microphone, but very decent ones can be bought for around $150).

Back in the 1960s, recording music required a significant investment, but now it does not need to cost any more than a modest hobby would.

People seem to be responding to this thread without having read the OP. So here is the original post's list of points:

• Diversity - With record labels no longer yielding the power of what reaches our ears, the field of diversity is virtually infinite with entirely new and viable genres popping up all of the time.

• Power to the People (Musicians) - For the first time in the history of recorded music, there is only one thing standing between a musician and finding their audience: Talent. Yes, there will always be disposable bubble-gum pushed by the big labels, but if you have actual talent there is absolutely nothing preventing you from finding a huge audience. Talent is literally all you need to make a living wage as a recording/performing artist.

• Democracy - Music lovers of all ages are no longer limited by their bank accounts (and DJs) as to what music they get exposed to. For the resourceful, all music can be sampled and listened to freely in CD quality (or better) fidelity. I discover scores of new artists every year, whose career I find worth supporting and following. The only limiting factor getting in the way of the amount of truly great new music I can discover, is time. As an added bonus, all of these acts can be heard in small venues and some of them will even play your living room.

• Technology - Just as music lovers are not limited by their wallet, this is also true of musicians. Yes, musicians will always need gear and axes, but virtually every musician now has the power to make professional sounding recordings for pennies. Today's iPhones blow away your father's (read: "your," if you're one of the bloated Baby Boomers typically found on this board) Tascam in terms of recording, not to mention what you can do with a modest laptop or desktop PC.
​

All four points are valid.

 

I think now all the planets are aligned and the potential for this being a great period for music is there, I just don't think its' come to fruition yet.

 

I've heard a lot of Parquet Courts songs. I'm inclined to think "five or six times" is more effort than the band put into any of them.

 

No dog in this fight but the above post just comes off as really defensive about liking bands few people have heard of. If I have time and feel compelled to chase downthese artists -- as opposed to listening to random new music I come across -- I might agree.

 

I don't hear much new music. I just don't seem to be interested.

 

This is just silly, and to use a favorite band example, the overwhelming majority of Beatles' tunes did not "take time to unfold" -- they lit you up immediately, or very nearly. Same for:

Zep
Deep purple
Journey (for some)
Heart's earlier songs
Van Halen
AC/DC

Many more examples could follow.

 

You make a good point. I've worked with artists/bands who at first glance, got angry and were unable to see the benefits of offering free music. They couldn't see that it was another means of promotion. Each time, we made a budget and invested money in pressing a limited number of EPs and singles on CD, in addition to downloadable promotional content, mostly mp3. Nowadays, artists, bands and managers will usually offer a free download card which serves as a business card and allows a user to access content online.

 

Exactly, we have a lot of casual music fans here. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'm a casual fan of food. Different strokes and all.

 

I happen to agree with uphoria6 that lots of great art really does need time to unfold; if you're not in the right headspace at a given time, something quite formidable may just go right on past you. Unfortunately, Parquet Courts don't warrant the extra time because there's nothing to unfold.

 

That's a deep playlist there.