4 ms·

I disagree. Crap music is more common than ever. In 2000 the 'gatekeepers' of music were still trying to promote legit acts, today, it's not the case. Have a

• AllenWell 8y ago
  I agree that there is more crap now than ever. Music production software being available to basically everyone, along with platforms for their music to be released, has allowed even the most basic first song someone tries to sing to be viewed by anyone. But is that a bad thing? Some of these small artists eventually turn into super talented industry giants, and it's so motivating for kids to believe that they can be one of those people no matter who they are! If there is more crap out there that's alright with me, it means artists are being given the opportunity to at least try.
  • sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Who are these super huge amazing artists full of talent? I can't think of any really. Because of all the crap - the 'talent' is now gone into show, entertainment, visuals etc, not anything remotely musical. Example: When Justin Bieber was young, his producer/backer Usher hired him a 'swagger coach' - to teach him how to be cool. Effectively - how to walk, talk, be chill. So Bieber honed is 'swagger' instead of honing any kind of musicianship, creativity or otherwise. Kids unfortunately don't want to be 'music stars' so much as they just want to be famous. 'Rapper/Musician' is just another form of Instagram star. Kanye is not that different from Kardashian. (FYI I do think Kanye is actually talented, and I also begrudgingly respect Kardashian's entertainment sensibilities). When Ariana Grande was 13 she walked into the label's office and told them she wanted to be a famous worldwide. And yes - there is actually a lot of innovation in production - production is now where a lot of the 'art' is as the producer matters more than anything else these days. The saddest part is that it's nary impossible for a 'good group' to make a decent living, or maybe to earn a nice buck for retirement because of course life is short for musicians. A few of them in the zeitgeist, but that's about it. Oh - a 'big name talent' I can think of is Bruno Mars. I thought his music was ridiculous until I saw them at the super bowl and was very impressed, looking into his background it's clear these guys are super talented, though fairly commercial as well. Low barriers + Commercialism have benefits: notably broader access and also the money/backing to do stuff. But they have really taken over and it's a problem sadly.
• jjj123 8y ago
  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Is it that the huge mega artists now aren’t good, or that good music isn’t getting recognized/doen’t have a sustainable fanbase? The latter is demonstrably untrue. If we’re talking huge mega stars that also have talent/artistic merit, that’s admittedly more limited (Kendrick Lamar and Beyonce are the only two I can really think of), but if you go to medium sized artists that still have big followings (say, 1M+ monthly spotify listeners) you’ve got James Blake, Janelle Monae, Frank Ocean, Mitski, Future Islands, Earl Sweatshirt, Rosalia, etc. Some truly important artists in that list. Is it possible you just don’t have a taste for the direction certain genres are going in (especially rap)?
• teilo 8y ago
  I have an entirely different outlook on this, and I believe the case of the "bedroom musician" is a perfect example. The amount of young talent out there is not withering. It is blooming, particularly because of the low barrier of entry. You are correct that there is much more crap out there due to the low cost of entry, and the signal to noise ratio is much higher. But there is also a lot more talent than I have ever seen before. And the talent still rises to the top, because even though the internet has created a lot of noise, it is also self regulating: the noise filter has been crowdsourced. Part of it can certainly be explained by the fact that, thanks to Youtube and Soundcloud, it is possible to find talent that before would have otherwise remained in obscurity. But a significant part is not the lower cost of entry, but the lower cost of learning and inspiration. Young musical talent can develop in ways that were simply not possible for past generations. And furthermore, the easy access to the vast canon of modern music that online access have made available gives these musicians exposure to musical concepts and modalities that they might never had heard otherwise. For example, were it not for Napster, there would be no Fleet Foxes. I've seen it first hand. Not only can vocalists and instrumentalists of all kinds access vast amounts of training material for the cost of an internet connection, but they can learn from one another, be challenged by their peers, and be motivated to up their game. How many young musicians of the past never developed their talent because of the lack of access to that teacher or that group of musicians? But all of this means that the entire scene, inevitably, will lose the classic label model where popular musicians are hand-picked based upon their perceived commercial value by a relatively small number of gatekeepers. The door which gives performers access to an audience also gives the audience access to performers. Even the monetization model is radically changing. Patreon has replaced the game of "hide the royalties," and many of these new musicians do quite well, gain funding to produce a more professional produce, contract for studio time and mixing engineers, etc., and start careers. Does this mean that we will see a tapering off of "the big contract"? Yep. Good riddance. But it also means that music is returning to the commons where it belongs: where it can once more become a product of the culture itself, with an organic feedback loop between creators and audiences, rather than the culture being told what they may listen to by self-service commercial interests who create nothing on their own. The Internet is a global campfire for creators and audiences.
  • sonnyblarney 8y ago