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

I don't like either. To me, with the blinders of what was just popular, the 70s were are pretty bad time for music.

 

Please don't take what I say out of context. These people may certainly have intellectual curiosity when it comes to things outside of music, or even some things that are music-related.

I'm not familiar with St. V outside of her work with Bryne. I am intellectually curious about everything you mentioned, because I care everything that has to do with music, new and old. Music is music, and if you truly love it, then as Armstrong said, there are only two kinds; good and bad.

 

What do sales have to do with anything? As has been pointed out, Billboard charts don't reflect today's music scene. If you think they do, you are really just flaunting how utterly clueless you are with the current musical landscape.

As a matter of fact, if we're only talking about Top 40s and 100s, then I might argue that the worst time for music is right now. But that is not the argument I'm making, and the kiddie-music that appears in the top 40 is completely irrelevant to the OP.

 

Apart from the gratuitous swipe at my generation (hey, I'm on a diet starting Friday), I have to agree with Abbey Road. (I've agreed with Abbey Road for decades.)

The sheer volume of new music being made available is mind-boggling; a lot of it's crap, but 'twas ever thus (even in the holy 1960s.) However, reasonable effort will find you some cool new music; sources I use include YouTube, college or internet radio (the wonderful KEXP here in Seattle), and … this estimable Forum itself. I treasure the fact that a large % of you are not ageing Sixties geezers like me, and turn me on to cool new stuff all the time! (Budget woes have me far behind in purchases, sadly.)

My one amendment to the o.p. would be this - a lot more than talent is required now, to break through as a new artist and make a living from your craft. Media savvy and a talent for self-promotion are more vital now than ever, else you simply won't get heard. As a point of honour, I buy releases by artists I believe in; but sadly, too many music consumers now are used to getting the milk for free. Until an equitable model for paying the people who make the music emerges, this whole art we love is on shaky ground as an ongoing enterprise.

 

Hey, you sound like one of the good ones.

I agree for the most part, but not just media and marketing savvy, but musical talent as well, which hammers my original point home. However, I think these independent artists are being supported by their fans, not only because they want to; but the more obscure an artist is, the less pirated they are. Also, the recordings today serve more as promotional materials for live appearances and other forms of revenue, which I also think is a good thing.

 

What's "happy crap"?

 

You can decry free music and only buy music from the back catalog. As long as you pay for the music you enjoy you're position is consistent with your behavior. If are against free music that stance has nothing to do new or old acts.

I think now is a great time for new music. I used to have an unwritten rule that every time I bought a back catalog album I'd buy one from a new artist. I no longer follow that rule strictly, but I still buy new artists.

 

how crazy? all I hear is a bunch of sound-alikes ,with not much talent Is there one great group?? thank God for recorded music

 

I forgot to add that compilations are also a fantastic discovery tool.

Hear a track you like? In addition to checking out the artist, also see what compilations have used that track, and you're bound to find more music that appeal to the same sensibilities.

 

The fact that you ask this as a supposed music fan on a music forum makes me think the music hobby just isn't for you.

 

well like I said there's plenty of good "Old Stuff " If you are open to new music ,more than me that's fine(isn't hard) ,but Best Era Ever is pure Crazy Talk

 

Easy there! Just an interesting fact.

 

I also recommend film soundtracks, like the one for Guardians of the Galaxy. That's some hip new music right there. Tons of great new artists.

 

I'm open minded musically (always have been)
If I wasn't, then I wouldn't have so many new artists and bands in my collection from the 90's, the 80's, the 70's, the 60's and the 50's.
However, what happens when you keep listening for something new to turn your crank and nothing comes along?
Is that MY problem?
Every band or artist that someone recommends lately leaves me disinterested (The War On Drugs, St. Vincent, Arcade Fire, Hozier, Jolie Holland...I could go on...)
I've got enough music to last me a lifetime and I still buy at least 10 NEW discs per year by artists or bands I've always liked (who continue to do great work)
I'm not going to feel bad just because I can't get into new music by new artists now when it's all meant for people that are at least 25 years younger than I am anyway.
In my opinion, one looks ridiculous in his 50's attending shows and enthusing over music that's geared towards people clearly his junior.
(...and I used to work in the industry; I was exposed to more music in recent years than most people are)

This is the worst era ever for new music.

 

I really enjoyed the way the OP made their case and look forward to discovering more new music myself. It is harder to do because there's more of it. Plus that and not being able to get to gigs. Then again, with a look at YouTube, I can see what a band is like 'live'. I buy my new stuff and second hand when I feel like it. Music is still 'the best'. Having said that, I also need to let the tank empty - have a rest from listening sometimes. When you're older and you've heard a lot of music and can dissect a new band's music in 10 seconds by thinking 'that sounds like....', you may do well to step back and stop thinking like a critic to being more of a listener, as you were when younger, less specifically clinical and pathologically selective. Maybe we all choose music to fit our lifestyles, at stages of our lives. You can still love punk, may not be able to dance to punk any more, because your knees or back aren't up to it... I'm smiling as I type this, by the way.

 

This is mostly because there are so many do -it -yourselfers out there and there is so much free music floating around.
Where money is being spent, instead of a lot of bucks being spread out among a relatively small group of artists ( like it was in the rock era) now it is spread out over a huge amount of constantly released new music.
So charting is obviously different than it once was.

 

Well said! Thanks, mate.

 

There is undoubtedly a wealth of music being released these days, unfortunately there is even more music made by people whose friends and relatives don't have the heart to tell them how unremarkable their music is. It's so easy and affordable to record and release anything you want. Honestly, as much as music means to me, I don't have the time nor the inclination to wade through the muck, any more than I have the time to put together a small family farm just to feed myself.
I don't need to be spoon fed by any means, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have an appreciation for the business model that showed me they had enough faith in an artist to invest time and money.
I also have my reservations regarding a new business model that requires an artist take time away from doing their art, to do everything a dreaded record label may have once upon a time done.

 

Yes, it is your problem. There is nothing wrong with only liking a certain genre or era(s) of music. The problem is the lazy holier-than-thou bull****. So many of the people making negative comments on this thread imply or make it clear that they put no effort into looking for new music that they like, yet feel free to make uniformed rediculous blanket statements about how this era is horrible for new music, or it all sounds the same, or it all sucks. I am not that intersted in any of the bands you mentioned either, but there are infinitely more bands than that making music today.

Great, you were open minded in, or with regard to, the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, but you make it clear in this post that you are no longer open minded. There is nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend otherwise and be so condescending about how this era of music is horrible.

 

And what percentage of artist, back when the big labels controlled everything, actually put records out on the big labels? I have to imagine musicians who were on small, independent labels, or not recording at all, had to do everything the dreaded record label did for those lucky enough to get a contract.

 

I'm in my mid-50's and still love finding new music. The problem I have with your post is that I'm not finding nearly as much of what I call good or great music in the last 5 years. And to some extent that extends back to 2005, which I consider the best year in music since the 70's. I'm extremely passionate about music. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars or more on music, concerts, high fidelity systems and countless hours listening, searching and suggesting music to others. There was a time when I took great pride in digging artists that most of my peers had never heard of, like I was some kind of musical genius phenom... I even scoffed at radio listeners beginning sometime in the middle 70's, probably when I got my first tape deck in my car. IMO the difference between the 60's-70's and now is that you had to have talent dripping off of you to get noticed back then, today not so much. IMO MTV killed music. You had to look like Whitney Houston or Jon Bon Jovi or you had no chance to be a star. Music became more about how you look than what you could play. How did Michael Jackson become the King of Pop on the strength of one or two good albums? Surely Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John have more claim to that throne? King of Dance I'm willing to acquiesce. The point is that not only did music become more accessible but critics become abundantly more available. How many of us subscribed to Billboard or Rolling Stone pre-1982? How many of us skipped Billboard and started reading message boards in the 80's & 90's? We flocked to boards of bands we dug, and found new music by listening to what other people liked that liked the band that we liked. And when message boards died, we took to social media, music sites and blogs. The point is we had plenty of input on new music. And then the “I” generation hit. I want everything now! ipod, ipad, iphones, i, i, i, is all that matters. I listen to the coolest music in the world so you can't be as intellectually stimulating as I am...

Labels still rule the universe and will continue to do so until a new model is developed that adequately compensates artists for their talent. Diversity is merely a euphemism for diluted. I wanna be a big, big star, but we all have different reasons for that... drives millions of talentless hacks to post their videos on YouTube. Oh how I wish YouTube's search function had a professional and unprofessional setting. There are plenty of video's out there with a million hits and how much do those artists get? I'm really okay without a post-grunge alternative rock with a twist of modernity.

Is twerking a required talent? When I think of Bubblegum, I think of Sugar, Sugar. And I hate to say it but the Archies have more raw talent that Bon Iver can muster up with a bunch of wannabes playing saxophones as large as slides. Or, so called musicians that have a little electronic box that emits random sounds… You might want to do a search on the highest hit videos on YouTube before you say all you need is talent. Justin Bieber is all-time #2, do I need to say more? Some of the most talented musicians barely eke out a living or go broke a short time after their 15 minutes of fame. Suffice it to say you need way more than talent, 36d's will probably get you farther.

I have no clue what music has to do with Democracy? However, we can agree that those without bank account can merely go to Pirate Bay or any myriad of bit torrents and just steal a musician's work. Maybe you are independently wealthy as you seem to have nothing to do but listen to music all the time, I certainly can't buy everything I want. I would like to know if there is anyone on this website that money never gets in their way? There is no free lunch. Music sites like Spotify, etc, pay huge royalties so you can surf their site. How might they stay in business one has to ask? They wouldn't do anything like track your every click and sell that information to the highest bidder would they? Which is a perfect segue...

I have to say that I agree that today's recording methods are better in studios, but do you seriously think you can produce high fidelity on a PC? I've been searching for years for an audio card that comes close to my Yamaha receivers and it does not exist. First of all, there is the inherit issue of fans, hard drives, etc, causing interference. Secondly, the audio cards that are available are generally manufactured for headphone use. Thirdly, hard drives deteriorate with age. Then there's the question of software. Flac is a pain, but sounds great some of the time. Most everything else you listen to is compressed. That didn't use to bother me, then I bought some Bowers & Wilkins CM5's (which are not the top of the line) and now I've joined the those-that-seek-the-best-recordings-available-of-the-music-I-love movement. I love this Forum!

Okay, so I'm busting your chops, but the only thing I care that you take away from my rebuttal is this, I love your passion for music. I hope there are plenty of others like you out there. What I can do without is your disrespect and arrogance that your relatively unknown musical discoveries are better than anything I choose to listen to in my free time and that somehow makes me less intellectually stimulating than you. If I need attitude, I’ll hang out on the Prog forums, at least their arrogance is halfway deserved. Younger generations always think they know better and then one day they wake up and realize they wish they would have listened to the older and wiser generations...it’s called maturity…maybe someday I’ll get there!

PS I have 4-5 Sufjan Stevens albums, at least 3 Massive Attack and at least 1 My Morning Jacket. None of them kept my attention past a couple of listens. I added the rest of your suggestions to my list of bands to check out, but without descriptions of what each band is like, there's nothing that makes them stand out on a list of a couple hundred bands...

 

At the same time, why should anyone support a new act if they dislike their music?

I pay for all of the music that I have, because it is a product on sale. If I like a new band (like Polica, Haim, Tame Impala, etc), then I buy their music. But I do not feel the need to support new acts simply because they are new.

 

What gives you the impression that Abbey Road is disrespecting your music? I don't get that impression at all. In fact there are disrespectful and condescending things in your post. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

 

They shouldn't.

 

In your post you said: ''I suspect you'll get plenty of blowback from people who decry "free" music who still don't support many, if any, newer acts.''

This suggests that you think that just because someone doesn't agree that music should be free, they should have to agree to buy music from new bands.

Why does it matter whether the music they buy is old or new? It has nothing to do with whether music should be payed for or not.