The only thing changing is the worsening quality of the world we live in. Cultural decline is ugly and there is no cure. Our 21 st century is fraught with mayhem and decline from mass shootings to environmental collapse to pandemics to bad music.
We as a civilization or barbarism are in steady decline and the final outcome is extinction. Yes, you are right. Modern music lacks quality because nowadays musicians just want to become famous overnight. They do not have formal training in music. You are right. Modern music is awful because they are made by musicians who are just interested to become famous overnight. They are not focused to create quality music. I think you sound great. I have focused on vocal training but to me you have an interesting voice.
Good songs and good songwriting. You have it nailed. The repeating of familiar music for the purpose of popularity and increased sales you refer to mirrors the political environment here in the States, and perhaps elsewhere too. The politicians and their media shills make up lies and repeat them over and over until people believe them.
The lies become familiar and comfortable — just like the crappy music. This technique was developed and perfected in the Hitler regime by Joseph Goebbels, his minister of propaganda, in the s and s. The 90s the last great decade for music? The 80s were the last great decade for music. But like Prince said, the 60s, 70s and 80s were the golden era. Did you just include Metallica when discussing the 90s?
That let alone tells me you simply know nothing at all young little millennial. The 80s were their creative peak. Remember that. Michael, whether Metallica were at their creative peak in the s or early s is a matter of opinion. So one can reasonably argue that they were at their peak at least commercially if not artistically in the early s.
It just means they were going to be bigger in mainstream… Same thing can be applied to Queen, the 70s were their peak between but their 80s stuff sucked even Brian May felt their output in the 80s were bad. You are commenting using your WordPress. So please, for your own sake, listen to some of the oldies and gain a little perspective as to what has happened to music. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Hayden is the former sports editor of The Observer. He plans to attend law school at a TBD location after graduation. Share This Story. With the music business in flux, labels are increasingly risk-averse, willing only to invest in the music they can make popular or that already is popular. When the music industry can order its resources to encourage people to think of a song as popular, listeners may actually feel they like it more.
As the Washington Post reported , a Clear Channel radio program called On the Verge chooses songs that are sure bets and mandates that all stations in the Clear Channel network play that song at least times.
The best example is the much-loathed "Fancy" by Iggy Azalea. Again and again, the program creates hits, whether or not the artists behind them are any good.
This sort of size and influence changes how we feel about our music. One study suggests that the more we hear a song, the more we like it. Our brain's reward center is more active while listening to songs we've already heard, so the more we hear Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" on the radio, the more we tend to consider it a good song. It's like Stockholm syndrome, as this PBS video points out : We're trapped with a song so we grow to love it.
We're taught that music taste is a personal choice, a choice that helps us identify ourselves: Taste is subjective, and therefore it determines our personalities.
But it turns out that music taste isn't nearly as subjective as we thought.
0コメント