3 ms·
I tend to agree, but this is exactly addressed in the article: > Some people—especially baby boomers—tell me that this decline in music is simply the result of
by bambax 5y ago
I tend to agree, but this is exactly addressed in the article:
> Some people—especially baby boomers—tell me that this decline in music is simply the result of lousy new songs. Music used to be better, or so they say. The old songs had better melodies, more interesting harmonies, and demonstrated genuine musicianship, not just software loops, Auto-Tuned vocals, and regurgitated samples.
In fact the second part of the article (after that paragraph) is much more interesting than the first. It argues that the music industry tries very hard to bury and hide genuinely new music (and ways of making it), by fear of cannibalizing the old (?), and that it is killing itself in the process.
- pmontra 5y agoI think that every 50 yo in at least the last 100 years thought that the music liked by the 20 yo is s..t and so will be for the now 20 yo 30 years from now. There is no particular reason for that except that the 20 yo artists have to try something new and they are the models of the 10 / 15 yo. What's interesting is that the new models don't seem so hugely more interesting than the best of the old ones. Maybe young people got wiser, maybe the music industry got enough material to play safe, minimize costs and keep advertising and selling the old tunes.
- brazzy 5y ago> It argues that the music industry tries very hard to bury and hide genuinely new music (and ways of making it), by fear of cannibalizing the old (?), and that it is killing itself in the process. I read it a bit more nuanced: that the industry is failing to discover and promote new music because it's too preoccupied with making "safe bets" to profit from old music, and part of that is using lawsuits to defend it against plagiarism, which has the side effect of actively stifling new music.