[johnvanommen]

I think this has also contributed to the homogenization of music. You would think the opposite would happen - with so many music options, wouldn't the options have a wider variety?

But here's why this isn't the case:

Twenty five years ago, CDs were expensive. Because they were expensive, listeners were compelled to listen to them over and over and over again.

Remember buying two CDs for $40 and playing them endlessly?

But in 2018, music is basically free. And because it's free, nobody has a vested interest in investing a lot of time getting to "know" an album.

So you wind up where we're at now: a lot of music that sounds alike, plus a ton of music that's derivative of music from 30 or 40 years ago.

[scarecrowbob]

"So you wind up where we're at now: a lot of music that sounds alike, plus a ton of music that's derivative of music from 30 or 40 years ago."

I'm 40. I play a lot of music with people in their 70s who were professional musicians in the 70s. I don't know if it's ever been really any different. Mostly, it's been more homogenous at a national scale, at least in the living memories of the people I play with.

In the late 60s and 70s, they could learn a single top 40 list plus some standards and play their week-long gig at the ramada or whatever (while on or off tour, working their sessions or whatever) and make a living.

Music is way more heterogeneous now, IMO.

I don't think that contradicts your point about how freeking much music people have access to, I just feel like it's probably been moving this way at least since the invention of the radio, if not the wide spread availabilty of sheet music.

[tyrust]

>nobody has a vested interest in investing a lot of time getting to "know" an album.

>So you wind up where we're at now: a lot of music that sounds alike, plus a ton of music that's derivative of music from 30 or 40 years ago.

There are plenty of different types of music being made today along with communities of people that appreciate it. These things aren't necessarily mainstream, but they're there.

[KozmoNau7]

There is a ton of interesting, varied, creative and surprising music out there, but you have to look for it, nobody is going to spoon-feed you.

What you say is absolutely true for mainstream popular music, and has been for a long time. But delve into niche genres, and the scenes are more vibrant than ever.

I'm a huge metalhead, and right now, I have ~150 albums in my "I should give this a deeper listen, it sounds interesting" folder on Spotify, and about an equal number of bookmarks from Bandcamp and the like from smaller indie bands and solo projects that aren't on Spotify.

This is purely within my preferred corner of death/thrash/power/prog/black metal. There are so many great, interesting and varied albums coming out all the time, that I actually have to be rather picky about what I choose to give more than a cursory listen. And I don't even really touch most modern "mainstream" metal, this is almost purely the nastier semi-obscure stuff (where 10,000 plays for a track on Spotify is huge).

Yes, a lot of music does sound similar to other music. That's what having an established genre means. But there is huge variety going on in the less mainstream corners, where fans are more dedicated and open to experimentation.

[King-Aaron]

> a lot of music that sounds alike

It always makes me laugh when a MC/DJ has to say their name during their music, because it sounds just like everything else and sampled pre-existing music so heavily that you couldn't identify the artist otherwise...

[johnvanommen]

Or when you're at a club that's hosting two or three DJs, and they all sound so similar, if you closed your eyes you wouldn't even know that a different DJ just took the stage

[sonnyblarney]

It's a good point, but I don't think it's 'price'.

Music is 'homogenized' for the same reason products are: labels are making 'lowest common denominator' for the same reason 'Transformers' has no plot whatsoever.

Radio and Google searches, 'hype' are ironically more commercialized than ever before, ergo, music is more 'product'.

There is actually 'more diversity' in music - but you have to actually expend a little bit of effort to find it. An I mean 'just a little bit' i.e. a search on iTunes or whatever. Most people do not consume music that way - they just don't care that much. They accept what's on the radio, or what their friends tell them and esp. for younger folks, they are influenced by marketers trends.

Consider the parallel: there are more 'web sites' than ever before, and the web is far more diverse - yet - our time is more and more focused on a smaller subset of places i.e. FB, Amazon.

A couple of nuanced things:

'Making music' is easier than ever, and what is considered 'music' is more broad - so anyone can spend a few minutes using off-the-shelf software to make a few interesting sounds and voila. Eddie Van Halen spent a decade nerding out in his basement practicing to develop his talent - now - you don't have to like Van Halen, but if you actually listen, you can respect the talent. 'Talent' is no longer necessary - so this is a problem.

It completely blows me away that a lot of shows now are simply Kareoke - young guys were rapping over an mp3. Not very exciting to me, but even worse ... I saw something with 'Chief Keef' recently and he's not even rapping over a 'backing track' - he's literally just playing is regular release track and then drunk/high mumbling over top of the track. He stumbles around on stage with his buddies, and each of them mumble a few lines over top now and then.

Which brings me to 2cnd nuanced point: it's not about the music (maybe it never was) it's about the fame.

Kanye West and Kim Kardashian are in the same business. One is more lyrical than the other. (FYI I think they are both geniuses in different ways, and I don't care for either of their fare but they are brilliant nonetheless). It's about creating a 'meme' - and wether it's instagram, or bits of acting, or 'music' or appearances, whatever - it's the same thing. It's almost impossible these days for a pop artist to be huge without having a very visual aspect. Taylor Swift's Instagram is at least as important as her albums. Her shows are massively produced spectacles. She and Beyonce are better described as pop-figure entertainers ... with a lot of music in the mix.

So the focus on pop-culture, and the visual aspect, has truly and fundamentally altered things.

Maybe some of you are old enough to remember: 'Video Killed the Radio Star' - since the social media revolution, this is further blown up.

I love all genres of music - but every genre has been blown up with really low grade stuff, almost written by a computer and you can hear it. Obviously EDM is worse than others because of the nature of the 'E' of course, but it's bad.

Final nuance: a great deal of the 'art' has shifted from classical musical paradigms, into the Engineering. So now, the 'producer' is in a way the 'chief artist'. We saw this in the late 20th century when U2 got popular. Brian Eno and Daniel Lanlois were producers on their huge hits - and you can clearly hear their impact. They were 'part of the band' in Bono's words. Radiohead has used the same Engineering guy forever and he's definitely a key ingredient in their secret sauce. Max Martin writes 100% of Katy Perry and other's hits and he, together with Dr. Luke basically own the hot-100 of known entities.

And of course ... in the early 20th century if you wanted to hear music, someone had to play it really. You needed a full orchestra for good music. When the 5-piece rock and roll band came along 90% of horn players had to get other jobs. When Ableton/Steinberg/GarageBand came along ... well, you don't need any musicians at all to make music.

Clearly there's a lot of intelligence even in the most mundane pop music, just as it's not actually easy to make 'Transformers' films, but the artistry is more focused on production than art ... and with so much 'noise' in the long-tail, it's exceedingly difficult for decent talent to break through.

I was never a fan of Van Halen, but I happed to see them in an Arena concert several years ago and it was absolutely amazing. The music seems 'passe' and cheezy on the radio, but live ... it's basically exhilarating. They are the definition of 'Stadium Rock' and enormously talented. Imagine Dragon's doesn't hold a candle to them it would almost be comical listening to them side by side live.

Edit: should not that the biggest money makers are the 'established brand' live acts, like 'Journey' and 'Bruce Springsteen' are making zillions more money than ever in 2018, 30 years after the fact - i.e. 'new artists' now have to compete with massive bands that are still truckin'. Check Billboard 200 album list, towards the middle you find: Nirvana's 'nevermind', Metallica 'black' and Guns n Roses 'apetite for destruction' on the chart for like the last 6 years (!) and might be for another decade (!) so 'new artists' literally have to outsell 20 year old Metallica albums to get listed. Rough!

[petra]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but

>> Obviously EDM is worse than others because of the nature of the 'E' of course

I don't think this is true.

I do think that the barriers to entry are the lowest in EDM - is the reason so much crap is being created there.

But those low barriers, that environment, is the ideal place for that lone creative genius, because, here it's all about the quality and quantity of great ideas.

No need for great band leadership skills. No idea will be "designed by commitee/band". No need for that great determination to learn technical stuff - maybe a quality less found in creative people. And it's relatively easy to form collaborations between geniuses, especially when everything is digital.

And at least if you love psychedlic music, the best EDM has to offer(say carbon based lifeforms or globular), is so much better than the best of what came before it(psychedlic rock, let's say pink floyd).

[sonnyblarney]

I definitely see your point, I just don't quite agree. The amazing production values of 'good EDM' don't make up for the nuance of humans.

If Pink Floyd existed today - and - they had a brilliant EDM-ish producer, I think that would be 'better'.

I find myself turning to Jazz too often ... the 'final resting place' of a music snob :)

[scarecrowbob]

Jazz isn't necessarily snobbery.

I know why folks don't like Coletrain, and I don't expect them to... but as a musician, I find it way more interesting to think about Giant Steps than to try and analyze, say, Townes Van Zandt singing White Freightliner... both are pretty cool things, but one has a lot more in it to play with.

[wyclif]

Jazz isn't snobbery, it's just the last exit on the musical highway for people who listen carefully to the interplay between musicians.

[scarecrowbob]

Well, I dunno about that... that might be snobbery :D

I take your point... jazz is one of those things where that interplay is super important and can be enjoyable to see.

Also, I really enjoy playing in a string band / jam band. Essentially it's jazz, but with bluegrass instruments. But then, it's not clearly not "Jazz".

A lot of the musicians I know who are super talented don't like a jam. They want something totally un-jazz -like... they what Joseph Haydn, et cetera. In that realm, there is a whole lot of interplay between the musicians that is even subtler than what you get with jazz.

As a musician or as a listener (and, this is even more true for the better musicians that I know), I feel like there is a lot of road to explore outside of jazz even just in terms of the interplay between musicians.

[petra]

I don't know exactly what you referring to as nuance. Care to explain ?

[yks]

didn’t expect globular’s name here, are you a patreon follower by chance?

[petra]

Not a patreon follower.