A couple of years ago, I posted this video:



The majority of responses indicated that most of the members felt it all came down to a matter of taste, and that Stephen Joseph Watson merely doesn't care for modern music. I certainly understood why respondents saw it that way, but I also felt that Watson made some valid points.

In this next video, the creator takes up where Watson left off, and goes much deeper into the technical reasons for believing Watson was onto something valid. See what you think:



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This video is just for fun:

Lack of talent these days is not an issue for just the music industry. Trust me on that.

Political differences aside, do you honestly think the people on late-night TV these days are as talented as Carson or Leno?

Are our olympians as talanted as the teams in the 80's and 90's?

How about great legends of traditional Professional sports. Compare the lineup now with the lineups of the 90's. Again, even when putting political differences aside.

Depends on what you'd call 'music'

Having a shitload of talent in the mixing studio and choreography does not a good band make (lip-synch efforts only).

Having other things (guitarist, drummer, etc...) that most would like to hear makes for a better live performance.

Everywhere you go, talented musicians are playing their asses off, and too few people notice. The manufactured music that has taken over just doesn't do it for me.

If you want to listen to a woman that's very talented, and that plays the blues, go find Samantha Fish video's on You tube. I really like her a lot. It's great when she plays a cigarbox guitar with a slide. Give her a listen, you won't be disappointed.

Modern music, at least in the genre I like - electronics/intelligent dance music/industrial music - requires all of the talent of the pioneers in digital music, bands like Brand X, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, and Tangerine Dream.

Compare these two performances of two groups that are among my favorites:

Tangerine Dream, from the 1970s:


The Glitch Mob, today


I see The Glitch Mob as today's rightful standard bearer for the groups that came before, those who created an entirely new form of music, digital music, that has grown into as strong a genre as any other.

That said, there are many forms of music that are talentless schlock, Top 40, popular country and western, metal, and others. I don't care about these genres since there is easy access to genres and bands that play awesome music.

There is very little excellence in anything anymore.

It can be quite maddening.

In many ways - I think the answer is an irrefutable Yes.

Nowadays many musicians are actually just 'arrangers of sounds'. It's strictly digital in origin - no heart / no soul. The digital tools of music creation at a musicians fingertips are unprecedented - to say nothing about Autotune and how that improves one's abilities.

Of the course the ultimate test is the depth of their ability and how they sound live.

Two completely different genres from 40 years ago

Earth Wind and Fire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qz_b1di3i8


Lynryd Skynyrd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRavC8CjRL0


Who makes music like this nowadays? There are some decent bands - but nothing like 30-40 years ago.


-------------------------------------------

Funny you should ask. I'm sitting here this very minute watching a Fleetwood Mac concert on PBS.

The answer to your question is an unequivocal YES.

I think there is just as much talent out there now as there ever was...however, I think the most popular music now is less talented than the popular music in the past.

I dunno. Some of those rappers can talk purdy good.

There’ll never be another Mozart.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
There’ll never be another Mozart.

I was thinking somewhat along that line, but not just Mozart. Even the 'forgotten' composers like Hindemith and the sons of Bach are orders of magnitude better musicians than the contemporary. Some of that is due not having the modern distractions.

Sig209, good call, 'arrangers of sound'.

Don't know if it "requires" less talent, but it sure seems to result in it.

I grew up listening to Wooly Bully, Louie Louie, Hang on Sloopy, and My Sharona.

I think we just forget how much crap there always is and only remember the great artists.

Don't forget Rick Astley!

Music: "vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion."

Back in the days before computer generated noise, musicians had to find a way to somehow get one or two or three or four different instruments (that they played) together harmoniously in a manner that was pleasing to the ear. In keeping with the definition above, some were certainly more beautiful than others, but most had the talent to do that with their hands whether you liked what they put together or not.

Whether it was Hang on Sloopy or Sloop John B, the McCoys had the same talent to do that as the Beach Boys did. They were musicians.

Nowadays, particularly with the popular club sounds, that talent is absent. Can anyone compare the talent and dare I say the genius of Simon and Garfunkel or Neil Young or Pink Floyd with the "artists" creating the computer generated noise we here today? Hardly.

There are some musicians still today putting out some decent stuff but they are few and far between.

While there will always be shitty musicians to be found in any era, there does seem to be a definite shift somewhere in the mid-Nineties. It seems like materialism and hedonism became all the rage and with it a lot of intellectual lyrics seem to have gone right out the window.

While I listen to a lot of EDM, trap, and drum & bass, there isn't much mental stimulation being generated by most of the tracks I listen to. It's just something to keep me energized while gaming. But that's not to say that the artists who create that music aren't putting any creativity or work into those tracks. The software used to create electronica is extremely advanced and requires a lot of effort to create a single. Samples have to be collected from dozens of sources. They have to be edited and mixed to create the sounds the artist wants for a single track. I've tried watching a few videos on creating electronic music and it's mind-boggling that someone can pull all that together repeatedly to create hit after hit.

Music peaked with 80's hair metal.

Benny Goodman
Gene Krupa
Marty Robbins
Buddy Rich
Lionel Hampton
Johny Cash
John Denver

Just to name a few.

Look up the drum duel between Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa! Just as one example.

Far too much of this current "music" does not require actual skill and training!

Get a guitar, half way tune it, learn about 3 chords, add a huge amplifier and you are a "musician".

Back in the day....metal sounds waz real, for example ZZ Top, haven't heard hat kind of guitar work for a long time. Saw them live years ago...two long bearded white guys...kick'n ass.

quote:

Originally posted by rpm2010:
Back in the day....metal sounds waz real, for example ZZ Top, haven't heard hat kind of guitar work for a long time. Saw them live years ago...two long bearded white guys...kick'n ass.

I agree with this. 3 guys with 2 guitars and a set of drums and a boatload of talent. Nothing phony or glitzy, just raw talent that created their own genre. Probably in the top 2 concerts I've ever been to. The other one is a tossup between Jimi Hendricks or Fleetwood Mac.

Jim