search for: in
 
advanced + submit your tab

+ submit your review

+ submit your article
fresh tabs / 0-9 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z / top 100 tabs

Why Today's Music Doesn't Suck

author: CPDmusic date: 01/04/2012 category: junkyard
rating: 5.8 / votes: 13 

Hello UG! I have not published an article in a while, but I have got a bit of time on my hands, so I think I’ll get back into a bit. Now, for anyone who has read any of my articles on this site, you will know I have written lessons almost exclusively; which is why this article might be a bit awkward, as it is more of an editorial. You still might learn something, just nothing about guitar fret boards and scales. The reason I am coming out of a long hibernation from writing is to deal with something I’ve been hearing a lot.

“Todays music sucks!”

“Why is there no more good music out there?”

“This guy sucks, and anyone who listens to this guy sucks as well!”

Yes, like we seem to do too often, we are bashing the newest trend, and pumping nostalgic memories of “what was” through our heads. I myself am guilty of such acts in my past, which may be why I feel the urge to write this; as an attempt to redeem my past ignorance. So, I am now going to take on what some people would consider to be the unpopular side of this debate, and I expect some disagreements to arise as a result of this article. But here is my opinion, my defense of “today’s music”; take it for what it is.

The first quick thing I’d like to get out of the way are people who I believe falsely proclaim that there is no good music at all today. In my opinion, this is absolute nonsense; this statement simply paints over every single artist who is doing what they do at this moment with one brush. There are people who seem to be under the impression that one hundred percent of today’s music is just Justin Bieber’s, Katy Perry’s, and Lady Gaga’s. Just because you do not take the time to look outside of this realm of music does not mean you can label all music today as being bad. If you only look at the Justin Bieber’s, Katy Perry’s, and Lady Gaga’s, that is all you are going to find in today’s music. But I assure you, there are many flavors of music available out there today; more than there were in what these people would reflect upon as the “golden age” of music. Just because “the trend” is only one or two styles of music does not mean that all other music has gone extinct; it simply takes a little bit of work to find, and will not be brought to you on a silver platter.

However, I think it is even more important to focus on the aforementioned mainstream music, those Justin Bieber’s, Katy Perry’s, and Lady Gaga’s. Now, I cannot say I have any of these artists in my iTunes library, because I do not listen to their music. But at the same time, I realize I do not possess the authority to deter others from listening to their music. For one to state something like “LMFAO does not make music” (I am using LMFAO as a general example, this can be said for any “mainstream music” artist) as fact is just doing so, I believe, to simply put that music on a lower level than what they consider “music”. Let’s look, for a second, at what defines music as such. My working definition is that music consists of melodies, harmonies, and rhythms, and is used as an expression of something; an emotion, an idea, anything that can be expressed in words or melody. Now, from what I’ve heard, LMFAO has melodies and rhythms, even if those melodies are on digital synthesizers instead of guitars, and drum machines instead of drum kits. And their music does express something; even if you cannot find significant and deep meaning in it does not mean that the next guy cannot find meaning in Party Rock Anthem. Another important characteristic in music, I believe, is that it evokes something, and I use “something” in its broadest sense, as many different things can arise in many different kinds of music. If Jim or Sue listens to Party Rock Anthem, and it makes them get up and dance, then that song evoked something from them, some sense of joy and happiness. Even in a slightly ironic sense, when these “dismissers” of mainstream music hear Party Rock Anthem, and it makes them genuinely angry at the state of “today’s music”, that song has evoked something from that person, although it is the complete opposite of what Jim or Sue are experiencing. Therefore, whether or not this “dismisser” wants to admit it, he or she is experiencing music, just in a form that is not blues, jazz, rock, or metal.

On the idea that “yesterday’s music” was light-years better than today’s is, some things must be considered. How this thought process usually works is simple: a person looks at all the artists from “yesterday” that they like, and all the artists from “today” that they hate. They then say that the artists from yesterday that they like were the only artists that existed then, and the artists they hate from today are the only artists that exist now, thus giving them the plausible conclusion that yesterday’s music was better than today’s is, because all of the artists from then they like, and all of the current artists, they hate. Now, I hate to ruin this fantasy, but back in the 80’s and 90’s, there was electro-pop and the like that is popular today, and today, there is still blues, jazz, funk, soul, and whatever else you remember from yesterday. The only thing that changed from yesterday to today is what was popular at the time; there was not a complete metamorphosis in the existence of music.

Furthermore, we need to recognize that the idea of “yesterday’s music” being better than today’s has been present throughout history. I remember this idea really hitting me when reading Hesse’s novel Steppenwolf; the character of Harry Haller hears this mainstream phenomenon of “jazz music”, and notes how it is not real music, and is nothing compared to likes of Mozart, Hydon, and Bach. At the same time, when this strange mainstream phenomenon known as “rock and roll” came to the scene, those jazz enthusiasts who were belittled by the classical elitists now had the opportunity to condemn this rock as an “impure excuse for music”. Now it seems we have come full circle again; now those rockers who were criticized by the jazzers see the mainstream pop music, and send it to the gallows as perpetrators of “real music”; real music that was, just decades before, considered to be garbage. People need to realize that this is a cycle; I would not be surprised if, by the later portion of my life, the electronic pop elitists, the fighters of what is now, in this futuristic time period, considered real music, condemn the next class of mainstream music to be fake, fraudulent, and impure. Much like you, the “dismisser”, neglects mainstream pop music as “real music”, the jazz musician was a “dismisser” of your music, and Harry Haller a “dismisser” of the jazz musician’s music. In actuality, at one point or another, all the music we listen to has “sucked” to someone.

I feel I should attempt to wrap up this loaded topic here. Perhaps I will continue this debate in later articles, but I feel I have expressed a solid enough case for now as to why todays music does not suck. I am not trying to deter you from your opinions; all I ask is that you express them respectfully as opinions, and not facts. I cannot stop you from saying “I think today’s music isn’t as good as yesterdays”, but just remember, when it comes to the idea of one era being better then another, there is no right or wrong. Just like you say “I think today’s music isn’t as good as yesterdays”, the next guy can just as easily say “I think you are wrong.”, and he is not any more right than you in saying such. Just remember that yesterday, the music you fondly remember was today’s music, and there were people just look you dismissing it as “fake music”. You have expressed your opinion that today’s music sucks, and I have now expressed mine; that today’s music doesn’t suck.

POSTED: 01/04/2012 - 03:10 am
print
share
subscribe to
More CPDmusic's columns:
+ Leech. Part 4 fiction 11/05/2010
+ Leech. Part 3 fiction 10/25/2010
+ Leech. Part 2 fiction 10/11/2010
+ Leech. Part 1 fiction 10/04/2010
+ Tips For Improvisation the guide to 08/23/2010
+ view all
comments policy  23  comments posted, 3 removed | this article is 88% spam-free
+4      
TerryFinn wrote on 01/04/2012 - 08:40 am / quote |
Well, as far as pop-music goes, it has always been around in some shape. There is pop-rock, electro-pop, etc. And the definition of this genre is that it's aimed at making money, commercial music, check wikipedia. Music that is made for the sole purpose of making money is not art. There may be good songs written for the pop-genre that is not directed towards making money, but that aims for the sound of the genre, and these I have much more respect for.

I will call all other genres than pop real music, because that pop is little of a musical genre. Hip Hop can be very decent, check Gorillaz. Rock can be fantastic, check all the classics. Metal can also be very fantastic, as for trance and dubstep. Classic music is amazing. Jazz, Blues, etc. I don't care for yesterday's music, because I live in 2012. If you lived in 1984, you only had the radio. If all they sent was the new popular genres, then you would assume that there were only bad genres at the time. I can find all the music I want, and so can everyone else.
+2      
Roxxie Roxx wrote on 01/04/2012 - 08:41 am / quote |
My working definition is that music consists of melodies, harmonies, and rhythms, and is used as an expression of something; an emotion, an idea, anything that can be expressed in words or melody.


I think this is where you argument first begins to fall down. What you should have said is something much the same but not included the word "words" that falls into the category of poetry which is vastly different to music but is added to it so that stories and ideas can be told and so the voice can be used as an instrument. Also you missed out the crucial part music is an art form. Back in the day this was the case. Mozart and Beethoven played music because that is what they loved and people listened to it because they loved it. Today's music is now not any where as artistic but instead a business where the music seems to be driven by labels and the "musicians" want for money and fame. That is why we hear so regularly about the music business or music industry.

Even the music of the rock, jazz, blues and metal where driven by love of the music not money. When queen came along with their more exciting music paired with their almost equally exciting live performances they didn't do it for the money because there was absolutely no certainty what so ever that anyone else would like it. The same can be said of so many others such as Van Halen, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Motley crue, Def Leppard and so on and so forth.

I would also like to touch on the idea of what makes someone a musician. Today it seems so many so called "musicians" either don't write their music or don't play their music and instead use auto tune and drum machines and the like. To be a musician you have to be able to both write and play music. like hydon and bach and also like Bon Jovi and Cinderella.

In fact I would like to suggest the idea that Cinderella are about as "musicanfull" as any one can get. They are all very talented at their instruments and put this ability to good use by writing songs that they love. They only play music because they love it. They never planned on making it at all big in the world of music and never made it as big as they could have done, their style is very similar to that of Guns n roses, whom so many have heard of, but Cinderella were a year earlier. They never made it so big because when they were asked to do what would have been their equivalent to use your illusions (sticking with the Guns n Roses comparison) they said no and wanted to go in a more bluesy direction. So instead of accepting what the label said they left them and finally released their bluesier album.

Also further signs that they loved their music and still do is that last year, 25 years on, they embarked on their 25th anniversary tour and have been touring for some time before that as well. This is all despite the fact that they only achieve small crowds and charge relatively low prices. Showing that they aren't that bothered about the music.

Further evidence of their passion is clear in the tales from the gypsy road dvd.

Sorry for the very very long post and if you read it all, well done.
+2      
Roxxie Roxx wrote on 01/04/2012 - 08:44 am / quote |
Seems TerryFinn kind of beat me to it about one of my points. Well done to you.
+3      
Silverpack wrote on 01/04/2012 - 09:21 am / quote |
As a guitarist and lyricist, I often find that pieces of rock, blues, folk or metal from the 50s to the early 90s are more interesting to play and listen to. Of course, I'd say it's a general trend, but musicians from today, whatever the genre of rock or metal they play, seem to just completely shape themselves in the cliche of the genre they chose.
     
TerryFinn wrote on 01/04/2012 - 12:00 pm / quote |
Roxxie Roxx wrote:

Seems TerryFinn kind of beat me to it about one of my points. Well done to you.


Which point?
+1      
TerryFinn wrote on 01/04/2012 - 12:05 pm / quote |
Silverpack wrote:

As a guitarist and lyricist, I often find that pieces of rock, blues, folk or metal from the 50s to the early 90s are more interesting to play and listen to. Of course, I'd say it's a general trend, but musicians from today, whatever the genre of rock or metal they play, seem to just completely shape themselves in the cliche of the genre they chose.


I can see what you mean. When I played in my first band, the other guitarist told me this: "You know, our music is cool, you know, but it's kinda different. Look at KISS, they came far by writing music that appeals to everyone, and I think we should do the same."

I have never been so dissapointed in another human being before, and this is merely proof of your claim that artists these days shape themselves after the genre they choose.

Also, I must add that the Bergen (Norway) metal-scene
has become pretty full of metalcore-bands that use clean-passages in every song at the exact same points, and that use a shitload of the same buildups. I think artists these days learn to write music by listening to their favorite artists.
+1      
ibanezbass27 wrote on 01/04/2012 - 12:27 pm / quote |
Haydn*
+2      
Kapalen wrote on 01/04/2012 - 12:55 pm / quote |
You failed to defend the music of today as far as I can tell. Your own argument was overall as shoddy as the ones you spoke against. You made just as broad a claim as your fictional opponent when you said all your opponents must share that viewpoint. You didn't address when people say "this song sucks because it lacks any good qualities and I see that as common in todays music"

Also, if people get mad when listening to rock anthem on the scenario you said, it would be their anger at humanity not illicited by the actual song.
     
Roxxie Roxx wrote on 01/04/2012 - 02:38 pm / quote |
TerryFinn wrote:

Which point?


The one about music is artistic but these days is driven by thee want for money.
     
Roxxie Roxx wrote on 01/04/2012 - 05:11 pm / quote |
Whoops, just noticed that I got the word music and money mixed up at one point in my long rant. It should read

Showing that they aren't that bothered about the money.


     
Myshadow46_2 wrote on 01/04/2012 - 05:57 pm / quote |
People have always thought that music sucks. It's not just today's music. People have always had opinions *shrug
-1      
hiwaychild1 wrote on 01/04/2012 - 06:25 pm / quote |
Ive actually had the same quarrel with myself on many of these levels. "Theres just no Van Halens or Gun N Roses anymore. Its all Beyonce and Chris Brown." But after a while, I realized that I was being rediculously critical of music. How can I discriminate against a whole decade of music? There isnt even a mathematical possibility that I would hate all the bands. Then I heard The Black Keys and Grouplove. Then The White Strips and Strokes. Then many other bands. I like these bands now.

What really opened my eyes though, was when I decided o experiment in making Pop and Electronic music. I though "Heck, the people that make this crap have no talent, so I can definately do this." I admit, theres a ton of easy parts to it, but theres also some very hard parts of it. For instance, to create dubstep, you LITERALLY need to know how sound waves travel and are percieved by the ear and how to modify the wave to get the sound you want. Now knowing how to do that with ease to get the sound you want takes a ton of skill. Its fine if you dont like rap or hip hop (and I personally dont like alot of it myself) but dont say there is no si involved until you try it yourself.

finally, I would listen to a friends music and find myself saying "This is horrible." but honestly, I judge it before I hear it just because its that genre. Then Ill say the song isnt impressive, but there are many bandsthat I listen to that have songs that just arent great, yet I dont discard them as artists. Just be open-minded. Dont judge before you listen.
     
Bananafish003 wrote on 01/04/2012 - 06:47 pm / quote |
Silverpack wrote:

As a guitarist and lyricist, I often find that pieces of rock, blues, folk or metal from the 50s to the early 90s are more interesting to play and listen to. Of course, I'd say it's a general trend, but musicians from today, whatever the genre of rock or metal they play, seem to just completely shape themselves in the cliche of the genre they chose.


Yes, but "interesting to play" doesn't define good music. I think this article is brilliant.
+1      
Bananafish003 wrote on 01/04/2012 - 07:10 pm / quote |
Even the music of the rock, jazz, blues and metal where driven by love of the music not money.

To be a musician you have to be able to both write and play music. like hydon and bach and also like Bon Jovi and Cinderella.


There's a whole generation of alt-rockers who'll argue that both those bands were only in it for the money, particularly Bon Jovi. And really are you suggesting that those who don't write can't be musicians?
     
andrew11x wrote on 01/04/2012 - 07:14 pm / quote |
imo the article is quite well written....gd job man ^^
-1      
cdayrocks wrote on 01/04/2012 - 07:43 pm / quote |
I don't understand... where I live no one is required to buy or listen to the artists they don't like. So why are we making a big deal out of this kind of a thing? I congratulate the Gagas and Katy Perrys of the world for creating something ,no matter the means, that has made them a lot of money. I don't listen to it or enjoy listening to it but they're sure a lot richer than me. And in response to all the simply ridiculous arguments about music just being done for the money, IT IS DONE FOR THE MONEY!!!! They sing or dance or whatever they do for a living. I just don't see the relevancy of the whole money related argument.
     
CPDmusic wrote on 01/04/2012 - 10:06 pm / quote |
Roxxie Roxx wrote:
Also you missed out the crucial part music is an art form. Back in the day this was the case. Mozart and Beethoven played music because that is what they loved and people listened to it because they loved it. Today's music is now not any where as artistic but instead a business where the music seems to be driven by labels and the "musicians" want for money and fame. That is why we hear so regularly about the music business or music industry.

Okay, music is an art form, I agree, but then who is to determine what art is? Some people look at surrealist can abstract paintings, and see it as nothing but meaningless scribbles, while others look at it and see pure genius. However, no matter what, it is still art, even if the people who see scribbles say otherwise. The same goes for this case; you seem to be under the impression that you have the definition of what art is, and that this modern music, which you deem unworthy to possess the title of music, is therefore not art. In this case, you are the person who sees the abstract art as scribbles, and can’t fathom how people can call that painting art, but in actuality, it is to some people. It’s like the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”; what you see as absolute garbage, someone else might see as genius. Also, you say that Mozart and Beethoven play music because that is what they loved and people listened to it because they loved it, while inferring that this is currently not the case with today’s music. I’m pretty sure teenage girls who are wetting their pants with delight when they see Justin Bieber are listening to his music because they love it, even though you don’t. Also, who are you to say that Justin Bieber, or Lady Gaga, or Katy Perry don’t love what they’re doing?
Roxxie Roxx wrote:
I would also like to touch on the idea of what makes someone a musician. Today it seems so many so called "musicians" either don't write their music or don't play their music and instead use auto tune and drum machines and the like. To be a musician you have to be able to both write and play music. like hydon and bach and also like Bon Jovi and Cinderella.

First of all, I don’t believe that writing is a prerequisite of being a musician; for example, what if there is a man who plays first violin in an esteemed orchestra, and has never written a piece of music in his life. He just sits there and plays the music the conductor gives him, with passion and near-perfection. However, since this person has never written an original piece, can you strip him of his title of “musician”. Also, even a drum machine and auto tune is music, even if it is not the most organic from of music. Whether you and I like it or not, auto tune turns hideous singing to melodies, and drum machines carry rhythm, even though they are programmed as opposed to hit with sticks.
Roxxie Roxx wrote:
This is all despite the fact that they only achieve small crowds and charge relatively low prices.

Yes, they charged low prices, great. If it was truly not about the money at all, and just about the music, could they not, in actuality, charge NOTHING for admittance. Just let everyone come to their show with nothing in their pocket and enjoy the music. No, they couldn’t, because it is to some degree about the money. These musicians make a living out of what they do, and simply NEED to make money doing this, otherwise they would not be able to do it. Just because tickets to see Lady Gaga may be a bit more expensive then tickets to see someone like Queen or Van Halen doesn’t mean that Lady Gaga is any less concerned about her music. All in all, money is a crucial part of a musicians career; it would be impossible to do a tour, no matter how small, if you were balancing a day job to pay the bills.
     
xiixlix wrote on 01/04/2012 - 10:08 pm / quote |
imho, i think CPDmusic makes a very good point. before there was any instruments to play there was the voice to make music. when instruments were first invented, there was no music writing systems. In traditional African music, notation is not used. music is past on through the oral tradition. The Australian Aborigines do not use written music systems nor do the Native Americans in their traditional music. ipso facto, a musician is anyone who uses rhythm, melody and or harmony to express an idea.

As for the quality of popular music, consider that the songwriters, bands, & artists who gain national exposure have succeeded by their diligence. 11 out of 100 songs end up on an album. They have a serious work ethic. I know. I've worked with some. Their organization, the support system surrounding them, the attention to detail is all first rate. This is their 9-5. On the lead up to a tour, it is not uncommon to do eight hour days for a month in rehearsal.

Which brings me to my final point. The musicians in those bands are very, very skilled. It is a very selective process to get picked up by a national touring artist. And to get to be a studio musician is equally if not more demanding. Try auditioning for Cirque Du Soliel or American Idol. Auditioning for Lion King on Broadway was 30 pages. That alone insures the level of quality.

(btw, i'm a percussionist. not drumset.. percussion. can you imagine what a keyboardist must have to do for an audition?)

So, write from your heart, write everyday, surround yourself with the best players and support, practice and gig as much as possible. You are your product. You deserve the best.
     
Darkdioxide wrote on 01/04/2012 - 10:19 pm / quote |
In my opinion, I think that the "new" music has its flaws, one being the "I want money" attitude, but today's music does put out some good stuff, sometimes. Usually its just the same old same old with one little thing different. I have to deal with the "mainstream" music listeners most of the time. Whenever I tell them that I like metal they immediately think i am dark and depressing. We see very "static" artists always getting the attention even though there are far more interesting people out there, but because they don't have a name or a record deal or whatever they don't get attention. Its hard for new artists to get out there. Today's music is a double edged sword, sometimes good but sometimes the predictable non sense we all think it to be.
-2      
jetwash69 wrote on 01/04/2012 - 11:04 pm / quote |
Great, article. 99.9999% valid.

But still, LuLu sucks.

     
phantom_lord586 wrote on 01/15/2012 - 08:41 am / quote |
pop music lacks integrity. thats it.
-2      
Mikethespud wrote on 01/15/2012 - 02:48 pm / quote |
It is later found that Jim and Sue have mental problems
+1      
CPDmusic wrote on 01/16/2012 - 07:43 pm / quote |
Mikethespud wrote:

It is later found that Jim and Sue have mental problems

Here is the problem: people saying other people have major issues, such as mental problems, due to their choice of music.
Comment tools:    Post your comment (please login or register and read comments policy first):
biu
   quote
smilies =)
  

About

Help/FAQ

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

RSS Feeds  

Site Map

Link To Us

Tell A Friend

Advertising Info

Job Opportunities

Contact Us

Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2012