4 ms·

I disagree with the premise, and the article author’s attempt to convince me of it is weak. I can equally claim we’re living in a golden age of music, both in

I disagree with the premise, and the article author’s attempt to convince me of it is weak. I can equally claim we’re living in a golden age of music, both in terms of accessibility and of the diversity of music being made. There’s likely some truth in the idea of mindless consumption, but I’m not sure that’s any different now than it was in the past. There have always been people who didn’t explore much beyond listening to the top singles chart in the car. That’s fine, not everyone has to have some abstract notion of good musical taste. Meanwhile, there are still vast communities of highly motivated music appreciators willing to travel the world to seek out the best music experiences. Too many, arguably, based on how expensive and crowded festivals and gigs have become. Personally, I think the 90s-00s were the weakest decades in pop, but taste is subjective.

gonzo41 2y ago
Ask yourself this, if you walked into a record store to buy a vinyl. Are you walking out with a BTS record? There's tons of great indie music out there atm, but the radio 'mainstream' has turned to trash. But it was probably always like this. Old man yells at cloud etc.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  No. No, it wasn't always like this.
  - orwin 2y ago
    I mean, i don't like pop music, i dislike disco, and while some rock/rap song have value, i'm not a fan either. To me, since the Big band era (which i doubt anybody here know), music on the main radio stations were always commercial shit (unless you live in Louisiana). At least nowadays i can tune in and listen to Wooz (or other) from anywhere.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      > since the Big band era (which i doubt anybody here know) I "know" it through my parents. Although I don't know how much radio time they logged. They heard big bands live, for dancing. I could be wrong, but I have the impression that radio stations would have "programs" of music, along with news and entertainment. It wouldn't be music all the time. There weren't portable radios, either -- you'd gather around the radio set. Must have been good times.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  BTS is a bad example. K-Pop (and also J-Pop) are about as painfully mainstream as you can get (in those respective countries). However, Anglosphere countries rarely import their music, so it loops back into being non-mainstream anyway. That nitpick aside, while Rick Beato's extremely Boomer, he's vaguely grasping at actual problems. My take on it is that streaming platforms are built to do what the labels want them to do - sell music as a commodity. In the terrestrial radio era, labels would pay radio stations to put specific songs they wanted to push in heavy rotation. This is called payola[0]. It's illegal, but everyone did it anyway. [0] The term was coined in an era where anything to do with music ended in "ola". Victrola was a brand of record player, Motorola was a brand of car radio, etc.
- cameronh90 2y ago
  Personally, not BTS. But even just looking at the current charts for this week, Brat by Charli XCX, Romance by Fontaines DC and Woof by Fat Dog are all fantastic albums. Surprisingly, David Gilmour has a new album that’s at #1.
AlbertCory 2y ago
> in terms of accessibility and of the diversity of music being made. neither of those addresses music being "worse." There's no "objective" measurement of quality. If you have bad taste, you have bad taste, and you can always find someone to say you don't. > I’m not sure that’s any different now than it was in the past Beato explains how it's different. Look at some Top 100 song lists from 50 or so years ago. Here are a couple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...
- bbor 2y ago
  Could you clarify…? I’m not seeing anything jump out to me, but it’s very possibly I’m missing something basic comparing it to, say, 2023: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2023 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_s... My only real takeaway is “more women and people of color”, and “more genre diversity”. Seems like an ok thing? The points I got from the article were, roughly, “music was rarer so we liked it more” and “music was harder to make so only good artists survived”, neither of which I find very convincing. I suppose I could watch the video, but clickbait titles are a pretty hard negative signal, lol
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    OK, name me 40 great songs from your 2023 list. where "great" is something more than "got a lot of plays on Spotify."
    - jsnell 2y ago
      This is some kind of a bit, right? You can't be seriously demanding that kind of effort from others, when your own contribution was to just link to a list from 1974 as if that list somehow speaks for itself. Because it doesn't. Your list has no intrinsic value that's making those songs obviously superior to modern ones. So how about you name the 40 great songs on that list, explain why they're great that's some other reason than being on the list. No?
bbor 2y ago
Absolutely correct. It starts kinda hilariously; The convergence of computers and music production is now complete, making any sound theoretically possible at virtually no cost. But I mean… lol. Cmon. Let’s run through the facts: 1. More music is being made now than ever before, both in terms of genre diversity and absolute amount. 2. The average consumer can access an effectively infinite range of that music, which is up from “a few records a year and whatever’s on the radio”, which in turn is up from “whatever’s on the radio”, which in turn is up from “whatever live music might be played at the local pub on Saturdays, plus church hymns.” 3. Across cultures, people think that the music that they listened to in their formative years — say, 15-25 - is the best music. The mechanisms are fairly obvious to back that up: emotional vulnerability, novelty, and number+quality of peer relationships are at life-long highs. In short, nostalgia. I would happen to agree re:pop (other than em!) but I think the scientific facts are all we need here. The article (and, presumably, the original video) is well written and in good faith, but I think they’re lacking some serious self-awareness. As the optimists always say regarding macro timelines: the world is much better than it was, the world is gradually getting better, and the world can be much better. This article would be covered under the first clause!
tmaly 2y ago
it is a mixed bag. I think distribution for new artists is easier today with social media etc. Go on Spotify, there is such a huge spectrum of music available. There is literally something for everyone.

gonzo41 2y ago

Ask yourself this, if you walked into a record store to buy a vinyl. Are you walking out with a BTS record? There's tons of great indie music out there atm, but the radio 'mainstream' has turned to trash. But it was probably always like this. Old man yells at cloud etc.

AlbertCory 2y ago
No. No, it wasn't always like this.
- orwin 2y ago
  I mean, i don't like pop music, i dislike disco, and while some rock/rap song have value, i'm not a fan either. To me, since the Big band era (which i doubt anybody here know), music on the main radio stations were always commercial shit (unless you live in Louisiana). At least nowadays i can tune in and listen to Wooz (or other) from anywhere.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    > since the Big band era (which i doubt anybody here know) I "know" it through my parents. Although I don't know how much radio time they logged. They heard big bands live, for dancing. I could be wrong, but I have the impression that radio stations would have "programs" of music, along with news and entertainment. It wouldn't be music all the time. There weren't portable radios, either -- you'd gather around the radio set. Must have been good times.
kmeisthax 2y ago
BTS is a bad example. K-Pop (and also J-Pop) are about as painfully mainstream as you can get (in those respective countries). However, Anglosphere countries rarely import their music, so it loops back into being non-mainstream anyway. That nitpick aside, while Rick Beato's extremely Boomer, he's vaguely grasping at actual problems. My take on it is that streaming platforms are built to do what the labels want them to do - sell music as a commodity. In the terrestrial radio era, labels would pay radio stations to put specific songs they wanted to push in heavy rotation. This is called payola[0]. It's illegal, but everyone did it anyway. [0] The term was coined in an era where anything to do with music ended in "ola". Victrola was a brand of record player, Motorola was a brand of car radio, etc.
cameronh90 2y ago
Personally, not BTS. But even just looking at the current charts for this week, Brat by Charli XCX, Romance by Fontaines DC and Woof by Fat Dog are all fantastic albums. Surprisingly, David Gilmour has a new album that’s at #1.

AlbertCory 2y ago

> in terms of accessibility and of the diversity of music being made. neither of those addresses music being "worse." There's no "objective" measurement of quality. If you have bad taste, you have bad taste, and you can always find someone to say you don't. > I’m not sure that’s any different now than it was in the past Beato explains how it's different. Look at some Top 100 song lists from 50 or so years ago. Here are a couple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...

bbor 2y ago
Could you clarify…? I’m not seeing anything jump out to me, but it’s very possibly I’m missing something basic comparing it to, say, 2023: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2023 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_s... My only real takeaway is “more women and people of color”, and “more genre diversity”. Seems like an ok thing? The points I got from the article were, roughly, “music was rarer so we liked it more” and “music was harder to make so only good artists survived”, neither of which I find very convincing. I suppose I could watch the video, but clickbait titles are a pretty hard negative signal, lol
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  OK, name me 40 great songs from your 2023 list. where "great" is something more than "got a lot of plays on Spotify."
  - jsnell 2y ago
    This is some kind of a bit, right? You can't be seriously demanding that kind of effort from others, when your own contribution was to just link to a list from 1974 as if that list somehow speaks for itself. Because it doesn't. Your list has no intrinsic value that's making those songs obviously superior to modern ones. So how about you name the 40 great songs on that list, explain why they're great that's some other reason than being on the list. No?

bbor 2y ago

Absolutely correct. It starts kinda hilariously; The convergence of computers and music production is now complete, making any sound theoretically possible at virtually no cost. But I mean… lol. Cmon. Let’s run through the facts: 1. More music is being made now than ever before, both in terms of genre diversity and absolute amount. 2. The average consumer can access an effectively infinite range of that music, which is up from “a few records a year and whatever’s on the radio”, which in turn is up from “whatever’s on the radio”, which in turn is up from “whatever live music might be played at the local pub on Saturdays, plus church hymns.” 3. Across cultures, people think that the music that they listened to in their formative years — say, 15-25 - is the best music. The mechanisms are fairly obvious to back that up: emotional vulnerability, novelty, and number+quality of peer relationships are at life-long highs. In short, nostalgia. I would happen to agree re:pop (other than em!) but I think the scientific facts are all we need here. The article (and, presumably, the original video) is well written and in good faith, but I think they’re lacking some serious self-awareness. As the optimists always say regarding macro timelines: the world is much better than it was, the world is gradually getting better, and the world can be much better. This article would be covered under the first clause!

tmaly 2y ago

it is a mixed bag. I think distribution for new artists is easier today with social media etc. Go on Spotify, there is such a huge spectrum of music available. There is literally something for everyone.