the problem with modern day music

nick_h_nz wrote: Greenmist wrote: nick_h_nz wrote: But that remains unchanged for any point in time, so renders the whole thread pointless. I dont quite agree, cause another argument i put forth was, early millennials ,Gen X and baby boomers, had to buy every piece of music they wanted to be able to listen to at will, there was no youtube and spotify for us, so this meant that we were more willing to listen to every music we had in heavy rotation, because we had less of it, and what we did have we spent our hard earned money on, so understandable cause and effect. I think this shaped our appreciation of music more to be more dedicated listeners because of this.    Yes i agree that the youth of today have more access to more music than ever before and this makes them luckier.   But please see my argument here too. I understand your argument. I simply don’t agree with it. As Lewian posted, it was still possible to hear a wide range of music without buying it. We listened to the music that we bought, but also to the music from the collections of our friends, and of our siblings, and of our friends’ siblings, etc. We dubbed each other’s albums onto tape, and we made mistakes. And then, just as now, not everyone was a dedicated music listener. Sure, there were some, but in my youth (in the 80s and 90s) we were a definite minority. I think you are overstating how many listeners of music then were dedicated listeners, and woefully underestimating how many listeners of music are dedicated listeners in their own way. It may not be the same way, but that doesn’t mean they are any less dedicated. Sure there are plenty of passive listeners, for whom music is simply something in the background while they do something else - but you surely can’t think that there weren’t just as many such listeners in the pre-internet days, because surely there were. Oh, and I just remembered one more way that the youth of today might discover prog, and that is the almighty Shazam. Hear something on tv in an ad or film or program, or playing while you’re in a shop or restaurant, and want to know what it is? Shazam it. Instant discovery of something new to listen to. And prog songs definitely do get played in the soundtracks for tv programs and films.

SteveG wrote: DreamTechPlus wrote: The fact that some of you accept, out of hand, that a) commercial music isn't good and b) it could only be enjoyed by those with a 'low attention span' is bad faith criticism which takes away from the agency of people to make their own critical decisions about what they enjoy.  Commercial music is not good. If it was, I would listen to it. I cannot understand how any critical analysis could be ascribed to modern pop music. Critical of what? Modern pop music is a cultural phenomenon imbued with social significance for it's adherents and is outside the bounds of most artistic or aesthetic criticisms. That's my two cents. Discuss.

DreamTechPlus wrote: SteveG wrote: DreamTechPlus wrote: The fact that some of you accept, out of hand, that a) commercial music isn't good and b) it could only be enjoyed by those with a 'low attention span' is bad faith criticism which takes away from the agency of people to make their own critical decisions about what they enjoy.  Commercial music is not good. If it was, I would listen to it. I cannot understand how any critical analysis could be ascribed to modern pop music. Critical of what? Modern pop music is a cultural phenomenon imbued with social significance for it's adherents and is outside the bounds of most artistic or aesthetic criticisms. That's my two cents. Discuss. Well first of all, the reason you don't listen to it isn't because it "isn't good", just that you don't like it. This is where I have the issue, any time you try to make an objective statement like that it feels like a lazy way to big up your own personal preferences. As for there being a lack of aesthetic dialogue surrounding pop music? Not to put too fine a point on it but, that's insane. You must not be paying that much attention to insinuate first that there is absolutely no dialogue about the artistic merits of pop and the implication that said discussions are the exclusive right of "artistic music", whatever that is. The reason I can't take this position seriously is because it's not a considered opinion that comes from an informed place. It's you attempting to pass off open and flagrant bias as objective fact with a selective personal metric. You don't like pop music. That's your prerogative, go bananas. It lacks a critical culture? Provably untrue, you just don't see it. As a final point, progressive rock isn't exactly the "music for music's sakes" genre either. It also has a pretty prominent focus on cults of personality and cultural imagery. Because you like the music you're willing to consider that a tertiary point, much the same as I can about pop music imagery. Love, DreamTechPlus.

You posted an opinion in the thread that's based on total subjectivity, but demean a subjective opinion that differs from yours. How nice. Now who's uniformed? Btw, it would help if you could distinguish between objective views and subjective ones. Then I could take you seriously. 

Edited by SteveG - June 23 2022 at 05:43

DreamTechPlus wrote: SteveG wrote: DreamTechPlus wrote: SteveG wrote: DreamTechPlus wrote: The fact that some of you accept, out of hand, that a) commercial music isn't good and b) it could only be enjoyed by those with a 'low attention span' is bad faith criticism which takes away from the agency of people to make their own critical decisions about what they enjoy.  Commercial music is not good. If it was, I would listen to it. I cannot understand how any critical analysis could be ascribed to modern pop music. Critical of what? Modern pop music is a cultural phenomenon imbued with social significance for it's adherents and is outside the bounds of most artistic or aesthetic criticisms. That's my two cents. Discuss. Well first of all, the reason you don't listen to it isn't because it "isn't good", just that you don't like it. This is where I have the issue, any time you try to make an objective statement like that it feels like a lazy way to big up your own personal preferences. As for there being a lack of aesthetic dialogue surrounding pop music? Not to put too fine a point on it but, that's insane. You must not be paying that much attention to insinuate first that there is absolutely no dialogue about the artistic merits of pop and the implication that said discussions are the exclusive right of "artistic music", whatever that is. The reason I can't take this position seriously is because it's not a considered opinion that comes from an informed place. It's you attempting to pass off open and flagrant bias as objective fact with a selective personal metric. You don't like pop music. That's your prerogative, go bananas. It lacks a critical culture? Provably untrue, you just don't see it. As a final point, progressive rock isn't exactly the "music for music's sakes" genre either. It also has a pretty prominent focus on cults of personality and cultural imagery. Because you like the music you're willing to consider that a tertiary point, much the same as I can about pop music imagery. Love, DreamTechPlus. You posted an opinion in the thread that's based on total subjectivity, but demean a subjective opinion that differs from yours. How nice. Now who's uniformed? Btw, it would help if you could distinguish between objective views and subjective ones. Then I could take you seriously.  You literally weren't making a subjective point, girl. You said "Commercial music is not good. If it was, I would listen to it. I cannot understand how any critical analysis could be ascribed to modern pop music. Critical of what? Modern pop music is a cultural phenomenon imbued with social significance for it's adherents and is outside the bounds of most artistic or aesthetic criticisms. That's my two cents." and then said "Discuss". I don't know what kind of response you expected. I objected to you taking a subjective opinion and trying to puff it up as some truth, now you're claiming that you were just voicing your opinion the whole time? Girl, don't play that. Be consistent. Love, DreamTechPlus.

First off, addressing me as girl shows your immaturity. If you are a man, act like it. If you are a women, act like it. Simple, no? Secondly, I answered you in the same way that present yourself. Putting subjective views forward and acting as it they are empirical facts and your force of wording makes them concrete. I'm you, but you don't see the irony. I gave the response you deserved. Whenever you bring words like "good", "like", etc. into the discussion, it's subjective. Stick to objective measurable criteria such as "popularity", "sales", etc. Again, I would take you seriously. An btw, stating that I don't like pop music is mind reading, another subjective act on your part, but you fail to see that as well.

Girl, bye. Get outta here with that gender conformist bs. Maturity would be not getting pressed over such a thing in the first place, my love.

Edited by DreamTechPlus - June 23 2022 at 06:59

No need. It's done.

^You would say the same to anyone's choices. For you, no one will ever be better than Fripp, Chick or Chris. Cool, but only your opinion.

Grumpyprogfan wrote: ^You would say the same to anyone's choices. For you, no one will ever be better than Fripp, Chick or Chris. Cool, but only your opinion.

While I'm not dissing Cstack's personel views, I have to agree with you that there are many fine modern day prog artists with the requisite chops. If not, then they couldn't create and perform progressive rock music on a level that's enjoyed by us. I'm thinking of relatively recent artists like drummer Marco Minnermann, as one example, who's as good as any old time prog drummer.

Edited by SteveG - June 25 2022 at 09:58

Necrotica wrote: cstack3 wrote: Grumpyprogfan wrote: cstack3 wrote: Who is today's Robert Fripp?  (well, Bob Fripp of course, but still)....or Chick Corea?  Or Chris Squire? Today's Fripp Today's Chick. Today's Chris Sorry, not even close!   Why the hell would you even comment if you're not going to elaborate? You're not adding anything constructive to the conversation

It goes without saying that Cstack's heroes are prog rock's innovators, but you can only invent the wheel once. The rest is refinements of that invention.

Edited by SteveG - June 25 2022 at 07:23

The advent of streaming music via the internet was always going to lead down the current road. As soon as the record company's clocked on to the potential of simply downloading tracks rather than having to go through the 'hassle' of buying whole albums, rather than simply moaning about piracy, they made sure the idea of a music scene that was wide ranging, multi faceted and bursting with new ideas was doomed. The record biz (having worked with the big five (as it was) reps I found the biz has no interest, whatsoever, in promoting anything bar the most bland, easily accessible and unchallenging music available. Modern music has morphed into the equivalent of Carlsberg/Fosters. All that matters to them is the bottom line - dollars. Artists showing off their chops!? Bah, humbug. Robert Fripp, in one of the notes to the KC Steven Wilson remixes, makes some interesting points. These being, that during the 1960's and 1970's, the music business saw a revolution, and characters emerged at the very top that wanted to see, new, exciting, challenging music promoted and succeed in the music market. In the 1980's, the money men started to take over, and the top men increasingly left it down to them, resulting in music becoming more and more commercial. By the 1990's and the new century, Fripp states that the money men had been replaced by hard faced PR merchants who really had no interest whatsoever in what was 'good', only in what sells. And what sells is plastic pop. Rock, in all its forms lives on, but only due to a hardcore of people unwilling to let it die, and in the face of open record company hostility.