The Bad Music Movement�..

Since the dawn of popular music, there was always movement; a constant �progressing� in a fashion that defined each movement as an era. Generally speaking, these eras could be viewed in five to ten year spans. The musical difference (musical difference meaning the general sound of the recordings and artistic message) was obvious from 1950 to 1960, 1960 to 1970, 1970 to 1980, etc. But something peculiar happened towards the tail end of the 90s: It appears that since then there hasn�t been much progressing. So in 15-20 years from now how will we define the signature sound of the 2000s? Probably something like �the era of hyper-compressed, way too distorted, ear fatiguing music that is now classic because the music today in 2020 is so much worse.� Haha, I really hope not, but certainly a song coming out today doesn�t have a sonic fingerprint that, say, couldn�t be heard in 2001. Indeed there has been great music in the past 8-10 years, but we all know that something has changed. There is a reminiscing in the air- passionate music lovers; people of all walks of life longing for a time when they could buy great CDs- new releases- every week�remember those days? For those who say that there is just as much great music today, well then they also have to admit one of two things along with that theory:

a) This multitude of �great� music is not getting out to the masses anymore, or
b) The masses don�t like great music anymore

The term �masses� is not to be taken with a negative connotation; I�m speaking of your average music lover, your everyday passionate listener. I guess they are gone because this �tremendous� amount of great, inspiring music is going unnoticed. The more likely scenario is that great music has greatly diminished.

All right, so if that�s the case there must be a reason, or perhaps several reasons all coming together to create the perfect storm for the invading bad music movement. I�m not saying there is anyone specific to blame, it is simply a cultural shift. I don�t claim to have any solutions but without trying to be too cynical, I would have to say that musical movements the way we once knew them could very well be part of our human history. Music will go on just fine and I�m sure plenty of great bands and artists will emerge in the future, however their relevancy on a pop culture scale will most likely be very limited (except for the very few). Let�s hope that�s not the case.

I have heard several people who are of the opinion that music and creativity has maxed out because there is only so much you can do and it�s all been done. Is music like a natural resource? Can it be depleted? If so, can it grow back? If it can, we need to start some music cultivation farms (oh wait, they used to be called major labels). But seriously, I do think it is harder to be original today than it was in the 70s or 80s. Also, great acts almost always take many years to develop and in today�s culture of people only wanting to be famous, the object of creativity has dramatically shifted. The mentality is more in the form of �let�s just throw it down quick so we can go get famous.�

The modern digital age has enabled bad music to be mass-produced very quickly and the wannabe famous �artistes � in the basement are flooding the airwaves. Great art is a long labor of love that few people have the time for these days. Add to that the fact that there are fewer live venues for budding artists than ever before. Many of the great acts we�ve come to know in the past honed their craft by gauging the reaction of real people. They could see the faces of the audience when they tried out their new material. If your audience were falling asleep during that new song, maybe you would think twice about ever recording it. Bands and artists are at a huge disadvantage who cannot perform live or don�t have venues to do so. Instead of playing their instruments they�re at home playing with their computer mouse.

To summarize, here are some points, which most likely contribute significantly to the great decline of music:

- Too much information. People don�t have time to sift through a billion myspace pages
- Music and arts programs have been removed from our public schools. So many children have been growing up without ever having a chance to not only learn and study music, but understand its history

- Music is free
- Live venues are dwindling
- Fame has become the ultimate goal
- Music has become devalued�why? Because it�s free
- Anyone who can play 3 chords or rap a line has the ability to record it and post it on the web for the whole world to hear, though the world is hardly paying attention anymore (you better have AMAZING songs)
- It�s harder to be original and it�s harder to stand out
- Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time- the burn-out rate is fast
- People don�t even buy stereo systems anymore- most people I know listen to music only on their computer speakers

So in conclusion, it seems most likely that we need a cultural movement if we ever hope to see another big musical movement. I suggest we make some truly inspired music for the love of it and turn away from this ego driven, fame lusting, sick sick culture of ours�and may God bless America! (I�m not just saying that rhetorically, I mean it .

Written By John Degrazio

When I grew up, music was free. It was called the radio. We all had one.

Live venues are dwindling because it's illegal to smoke and in Texas they're now arresting people from being publicly intoxicated INSIDE a bar.

It’s harder to be original and it’s harder to stand out

Well, duh. If it were easy, anyone who could play three chords...

we need a cultural movement if we ever hope to see another big musical movement.

This guy obviously doesn't understand the way things work, which is probably why he's writing for an A&R magazine.

Most trends are set by decidedly small handfuls of people. A "cultural movement" would follow a musical evolution, not precede it.

The future of music is not tied to the fate of the record labels.

"The more likely scenario is that great music has greatly diminished."

Not hardly. The overall volume of music has increase exponentially, so it stands to reason that the volume of "great" music has increased as well. It's just harder to find because there is so much to sift through and no one trusts the ones who used to act as our filters.

Think of it this way, instead of looking for a needle in a hackstack, we now have to look for a hundred needles lost somewhere in a million haystacks.

People who can't find good music are looking in the wrong places.

There're plenty of great artists out there who are still doing new things and coming up with complex ideas.

Pop culture is usually full of bull shit music, because of the corporations who push shit music onto us saying it's cool and what not. The majority of sheep listen to it and buy the records, therefore giving the corporations millions. Brainwash, brainwash, brainwash. It's the key to being successful in a world run by companies.

Plenty of great musical movements exist, yet they're easy to avoid.

culture = movement

if one is not cultured then there is no movement.

"Why Has Modern Music Lost So Much Impact?"

My answer - because most of it SUCKS.

"Pop culture is usually full of bull shit music'

And since that is what record labels endless push on us, its what we see as today's "Modern Music", hence the lack of impact and increse in SUCKING!!

I don't doubt there is great music out there waiting to be found. But since the record labels would rather sue 12-year-old girls, dead grandmas, disabled moms and college students than try to find this "great music" and promote it themselves, music will continue to SUCK!!!

We're seeing the future of music, and it isn't a future where the music has lost impact. It is simply that there are more artists with niche audiences, and their impact is among those niche groups of rabid fans.

This is like the NYTimes and NBC and "old media" complaining about how news is going down the tubes. They don't want to recognize that alternatives like talk radio and blogs and aggregator sites are valid, and having huge impact.

Similarly the "old music media" companies and all the ancillary bloodsuckers are seeing that they have lost impact, lost market share, lost relevance, and they are saying "modern music has lost impact." Wrong. Corporate Big Music has lost influence and impact. Music itself, outside of the hitmaking machines spinning out pablum and forcing it on Clear Channel FM stations, is doing just fine, thank you.

re: Modern music sucks

Whose fault is this? Who is responsible for compressing music until there are no dynamics left?

Our filters -- the record labels.

This is what they like. This is what sounds good to them. This is what they think they can sell. This is what happens when the primary concern is money and the next quarterly report.

They stopped searching for good music a long time ago in order to focus on the quick buck. They stopped looking for new, in favor of acts that fit within a proven profitable formula.

Then they told us not to listen to it.

When the air filters in my car or in my house get dirty, clogged and stop letting fresh air through, it's time to replace it. If our music filters don't let the fresh air in, we should do the same.

There's also a line of thought about how the "bad music movement" works its way through the bowels of the recording industry and we hear them grunt and groan about how much effort it takes to push out new product.

But I'm certainly not going to be the one to bring it up.

"They stopped searching for good music a long time ago in order to focus on the quick buck. They stopped looking for new, in favor of acts that fit within a proven profitable formula.

Then they told us not to listen to it."

couldn't agree more!

"When I grew up, music was free. It was called the radio."

Y'gotta love George for astutely saying what needs to be said but is so often missing from news articles or by-lines.
I'm so glad he's on our side (the side of reason and clear-headedness).


"The future of music is not tied to the fate of the record labels." -- George

There's another prime example from the master!


The article's author said, "we need a cultural movement if we ever hope to see another big musical movement."

"This guy obviously doesn't understand the way things work, which is probably why he's writing for an A&R magazine."
-- George

Bravo again!

That author's quote amuses me (i.e., "we need a cultural movement if we ever hope to see another big musical movement").

Somebody should ask him, "Who's 'we'"?
The signs of cultural and technological changes that have led to the present era in regard to music have been building for quite some time, buddy. Oh, I know, the fat cats have been hoping for a major new lucrative trend to open up and help them recapture their previous arrogant, bloodsucking lifestyles. Ain't gonna happen. The genie can't be put back in the bottle. (And that genie is what occurred by default, or fault, from the very labels who are lamenting in their dismay.)
I think the author's phrase "ego-driven" applies to the big labels most of all.


"They stopped searching for good music a long time ago in order to focus on the quick buck."

That bottom-line perspective, appreciated by distilled1 and me, comes from ... (you get one guess)!

The article's author wrote:
"Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time."

George responds:
"Whose fault is this? Who is responsible for compressing music until there are no dynamics left?

Our filters -- the record labels."


What we need is for George to be nationally syndicated!

Okay, back up the campaign bus for a minute. While I appreciate the admiration for my witty repartee, it kind of requires having someone say something stupid to mock. And putting my heckling in the same place said nonsense appears avoids the whole "taking it out of context" argument.

(Check the source link)

I don't think I'm saying anything profound, just pointing out the glaringly obvious. I guess I wonder why everyone doesn't see the same thing right away because... how can you not?

But that's the point. We need you to say the things that somehow so many people just can't see (even though it SHOULD be obvious, as you mentioned). Not only that, but you have a knack for saying them so well...as the record shows.
Sorry for extracting them out of your complete postings, but it was too tempting in order for me to show how well your responses can be used to dismiss some of the article's languid statements.

Your talent for being able to write witty repartee on such a consistent basis over the years is admirable and serves the mission of this website quite well.

George, he's right, you shape words well giving them weight and meaning that clarifies what would otherwise be bought into as crap-thinking without challenge or question. Keep it up.

Okay, then. You've convinced me of my awesomeness.

By all means, carry on.