4 ms·

> 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 qua

> 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?
    - ofcourseyoudo 2y ago
      There aren't 40 great songs on either of the lists he linked... there's maybe 18 on the first and maybe 15 on the second. On the 2023 list I'd put about 10-11 songs as "great", but that's without the benefit of hindsight of which songs are still played and remembered decades later. And there's going to be songs on the 2023 list (like a lot of the Morgan Wallen stuff) that I don't particularly like but will be heard many times in the future... Personally I hate "Last Night" but it's going to be around for a while.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        I realized afterwards that 40 is too high and I was considering lowering it to 20. But even by your standards, "it was always exactly like this" is clearly wrong.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      that's what I thought you'd say: you'd be embarrassed to pick even 15 songs from your list and call them "great." And then demand that I do some work for YOU.
      - jsnell 2y ago
        You appear to be very confused. That was my first and only message to this thread, so it seems extremely unlikely you had any kind of expectation on me posting anything here let alone what I'd say. Anyway, since you're not only confusing names but forgetting what you wrote, here's a reminder: > OK, name me 40 great songs from your 2023 list. where "great" is something more than "got a lot of plays on Spotify." Do you seriously not see that this is you demanding work? And just to be clear: I'm not demanding that level work from you. I don't actually care about what music you like on a individual song level. I was echoing your request to show how unreasonable it was. You appear to agree it's unreasonable. So why did you make that demand? Why are you pretending that you didn't? But I am genuinely intrested in why you think these lists are such obvious demonstrations of the superiority of the music you like that just linking to the list should be treated as a mic drop.
  - bbor 2y ago
    How do you define great? What should I be looking for?
  - senordevnyc 2y ago
    "Great" is way too subjective, but I'll say this: I'd much rather listen to the 2023 list than either of the others you shared. Life is a lot easier when you stop trying to insist that the subjective is objective.
cameronh90 2y ago
Personally, I wouldn’t listen to most of those. There’s plenty of good stuff on those lists, but also a fair amount of trash and quite a lot I’ve never heard of - bearing in mind I’m not American, and also not really much of a 70s fan. I had a listen to Joy to the World by Three Dog Night, and all I can say is I hope it didn’t mess up my recommendation algorithm. I’m also not sure what playing chart top trumps would prove anyway. It’s conceivable that the charts can be worse by some objective metric, even if the average of the same metric in the overall music scene is higher, if the diversity and discovery of music is wider. In essence the chart just becomes the lowest common denominator, rather than critically acclaimed music, as it may have been when what we listened to was driven mainly by a cabal of professional radio DJs. The subjectivity of musical taste is something I mentioned twice, but intentionally tried to avoid passing judgement on because it’s essentially impossible. If a boomer wants to come along and tell an entire generation that his taste in music is superior to theirs, well that’s up to him, but it seems very old man yells at cloud to me. The reason I mention diversity and discovery is because I figure the closest thing to an objective measurement of how good the overall music ecosystem is, is how satisfied people are with the music they’re listening to. It stands to reason that diversity and discovery is a key part of that. I’m not convinced any attempt to define an objective ordering of musical taste would be anything other than an exercise in nostalgia and elitism.
- eesmith 2y ago
  > all I can say is I hope it didn’t mess up my recommendation algorithm. I can't help but interpret that as meaning you are hesitant about trying out new music because of a cabal of professional programmers.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  lots of verbiage and demand for definitions here, not much content. Always a good sign that it's time to end the conversation.

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?
  - ofcourseyoudo 2y ago
    There aren't 40 great songs on either of the lists he linked... there's maybe 18 on the first and maybe 15 on the second. On the 2023 list I'd put about 10-11 songs as "great", but that's without the benefit of hindsight of which songs are still played and remembered decades later. And there's going to be songs on the 2023 list (like a lot of the Morgan Wallen stuff) that I don't particularly like but will be heard many times in the future... Personally I hate "Last Night" but it's going to be around for a while.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      I realized afterwards that 40 is too high and I was considering lowering it to 20. But even by your standards, "it was always exactly like this" is clearly wrong.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    that's what I thought you'd say: you'd be embarrassed to pick even 15 songs from your list and call them "great." And then demand that I do some work for YOU.
    - jsnell 2y ago
      You appear to be very confused. That was my first and only message to this thread, so it seems extremely unlikely you had any kind of expectation on me posting anything here let alone what I'd say. Anyway, since you're not only confusing names but forgetting what you wrote, here's a reminder: > OK, name me 40 great songs from your 2023 list. where "great" is something more than "got a lot of plays on Spotify." Do you seriously not see that this is you demanding work? And just to be clear: I'm not demanding that level work from you. I don't actually care about what music you like on a individual song level. I was echoing your request to show how unreasonable it was. You appear to agree it's unreasonable. So why did you make that demand? Why are you pretending that you didn't? But I am genuinely intrested in why you think these lists are such obvious demonstrations of the superiority of the music you like that just linking to the list should be treated as a mic drop.
- bbor 2y ago
  How do you define great? What should I be looking for?
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  "Great" is way too subjective, but I'll say this: I'd much rather listen to the 2023 list than either of the others you shared. Life is a lot easier when you stop trying to insist that the subjective is objective.

cameronh90 2y ago

Personally, I wouldn’t listen to most of those. There’s plenty of good stuff on those lists, but also a fair amount of trash and quite a lot I’ve never heard of - bearing in mind I’m not American, and also not really much of a 70s fan. I had a listen to Joy to the World by Three Dog Night, and all I can say is I hope it didn’t mess up my recommendation algorithm. I’m also not sure what playing chart top trumps would prove anyway. It’s conceivable that the charts can be worse by some objective metric, even if the average of the same metric in the overall music scene is higher, if the diversity and discovery of music is wider. In essence the chart just becomes the lowest common denominator, rather than critically acclaimed music, as it may have been when what we listened to was driven mainly by a cabal of professional radio DJs. The subjectivity of musical taste is something I mentioned twice, but intentionally tried to avoid passing judgement on because it’s essentially impossible. If a boomer wants to come along and tell an entire generation that his taste in music is superior to theirs, well that’s up to him, but it seems very old man yells at cloud to me. The reason I mention diversity and discovery is because I figure the closest thing to an objective measurement of how good the overall music ecosystem is, is how satisfied people are with the music they’re listening to. It stands to reason that diversity and discovery is a key part of that. I’m not convinced any attempt to define an objective ordering of musical taste would be anything other than an exercise in nostalgia and elitism.

eesmith 2y ago
> all I can say is I hope it didn’t mess up my recommendation algorithm. I can't help but interpret that as meaning you are hesitant about trying out new music because of a cabal of professional programmers.
AlbertCory 2y ago
lots of verbiage and demand for definitions here, not much content. Always a good sign that it's time to end the conversation.