yes, generation does make a huge difference in setting your taste in music. It may be something when you're young and gradually changes as you're older. I still love listening to old school, early 90s VG music. The stuff that I listened to when I was 10-11(Limp Bizkit, Blink 182) not so much.

you said you're into newer generation bands such as Green Day, but you do you like older rock like Led Zeppelin and stuff that you're dad's into as well?

I too probably will dislike the mainstream modern music in 10-20 years, only because it's tending to shift towards the accomodations and luxuries obtained from the career rather than the actual music itself. Although you can make a case that its been this way for years...but notice how channels like MTV and VH1 are getting taken over by reality shows and celebrity gossip? There will still be outlets were indie, underground, and obscene artists can display their music as the digital world provides an advantage that we didn't have one or two decades ago.

Thanks for your input Dazmi.

yes, you made sense in what you're saying, thanks for your input:)

Music is definetly becoming more of a buisness, but why can't you draw the same conclusions about it being more buisness oriented the last few decades as well? Experimental styles are allowing people to supposedly produce easier types of music? No, that cant necessarily be right(Beatles song are pretty simple). I think it has a lot to do with a lot of actual musicians writing THE music for prettier, more TV-media oriented people to sing or play. (I can't necessarily back this up with any evidence, it's just circulated that some pop artists get people to write their music for them and they perform, so take this with a grain of salt) That is what's become a major change in this era, atleast for some bands. and again, this isnt necessarily a bad thing, but possibly allowing two different types of artists to coincide with each other. Some people can't perform music well, some people , can't write music (anyone can really write music tho if they try and have an inspiration to do so!). I would just think its much more fruitful if you both create, get to know your music and illustrate your emotions through this medium, and then display the works to your audience.

"music isnt changing, the listener is changing"

I would have to say its a mixture of both. Although when thinking deeply that out it is rather quite a complex concept. I think experimentation and doing certain things by accident makes changes in music as well. Music has been around for centuries and its hasnt always been materialistic, but if I did long research I could probably dig up that its been its been the way since the 90s and even before then. But I do see how music would change to become more marketable to larger audiences, hence dumbing it down to "caveman status" to make it more available to listeners. I mean no disrespect to lyricists, I recognize that it takes a lot of literary skills and lyric wise it is my favorite type of music. But I've always prefered listening to the beat, the instruments, and the synths, so if its got a nice beat with a catchy vocal melodies then its all good with me. So I see your point, and I'd have to agree. When you say there is no such thing as bad music, that was pretty much what I was getting at. Interesting conversation here.

anyways very cool post, thanks for the insight!

yea, I try to not hand out scores biased by my tastes, but in reality since music is subjective you will probably will unconsciously in one way or another. I rarely hand out scores below a 7 and if someone gets a score below this, its probably because there's completely horrible sound quality or it is nearly unfinished.

yes I will keep on keeping on :P thanks for the response.

nah man thanks a bunch for posting. you dont really need to read the other blog, you got the main gist- music is subjective and theres no measurement of determing how good or what makes music, music. I especially dislike when people dont even give reasons why they disagree with a certain track and just automatically dismiss it because its not in their taste.

anyways, sonic youth is pretty sweet, i'll have to check out dinosaur jr. It also looks like you got a new track up! i'm pretty excited to listen to it, i'll drop a comment on it tommorrow when I'm done with finals :D

since music is subjective (like you mentioned) then when grading musicians and bands you can take elements like popularity and complexity for developing a criteria.

But then again there's loophoples in these type of judgements, look at someone like Avril Lavigne or Britney Spears. Then look at a band like DreamTheater or Spiral Architect. Those two ladies get way more fame and recognition. Does that make them better artists?

Then look at the idea of making music complex. I could post a recording of myself playing offbeat drums alongside out of tune guitars and claim that its some super complex mathetmatical formula. Will that make me sound better? Does that make me a better musician?

not sure if that made perfect sense but I hope you get the idea-I think war-spawn has the best post (look above) on how to determine levels of good and bad music. Anyway, thanks a bunch for your comment endlessnumber!

good looking girlfriend btw ;)

Wow, thanks for the in-depth, intellectual response nav :D

It's been a while since someone has commented on my blog, so I had to reread what I wrote, I see that I branched on to a lot of different subjects and my blog was mainly arguing/explaining one broad idea. You seem to be mainly making a personal argument on why the music of today is inferior to the music of yesterday and give an analysis of why certain styles have downgraded over time. While I agree to disagree with what you said (and I certainly do understand where you are coming from), my main, intended purpose of writing this blog (which is not blatantly put) does not directly correlate with making a comparison between certain "eras" or "movements" of music, but looking at what the future *can* hold while trying to use as little of my bias, personal opinions on tracks, genres, and artists, and personal experiences as possible.

I still stick with my main point, "don't limit expression". And in your third paragraph where you are giving a contrast between 80s music/modern music you give off the impression that you would disagree. What's wrong with singing about those ideals? And I'm quite sure those topics aren't exclusively used today. I know little about the poetic side of music, but the "sex, drugs, rock and roll" themes (not just the hit song) started before the 80s and you can make a similar complaint about what artists sing about then, and this encompasses more than just rock/metal musicians. Anyway, I don't think any lyricist should be confined to singing about just lighthearted content. If you search you will certainly find music related to the moods/emotions and contain elements like you talk about, even in the mainstream.

I would also like to know what makes music that contains images of fighting and violence bad. Or how inappropriate (by the way, what sources are you using to deem certain words inappropriate?) language would negatively affect music...or why listening to music for rebellious reasons would be degrading? You can make a case that the genre of DnB actually was influenced from all these diluting characteristics that you state...mainly from cyberpunk, which I can send you a document on if you are interested...

You also infer that using a "simple synth" is another negative point about modern music. I explained that using technicality is an arduous criterion when trying to grade music above and in a response to endlessnumber. Simplicity can be taken both under a positive or negative light. Simplicity can be a good element to use in music if an artist is going for a laidback, relaxing mood. A good portion of catchier (which is widely subjective, again) riffs are essentially developed from an uncomplicated premise. An example of using simplicity that I do not agree with would be a musician being too lazy to utilize more effort within their works. I guess that could be considered a problem moreso today (you mentioned Soulja Boy below) given the audience we have...but then again, why should the amount of effort you put into music if the end result is something that sounds decent? (and again, I hope you don't just categorize modern musicians as the only group that focuses on simplicity)

I think a very valid point that you make and supports your side, and which I should have discussed more in depth, is how music today is more intended to sell than amuse. When you try to sellout, what commonly happens is an artist will try to mimic popular ideas which may decrease their own personal flair. Asides from just the compositional/production effect this may have on an artist's work is music becomes more of a business than just an art. I find that rather unfortunate when money becomes the primary motivation. I would rather hear what a musician has to say and play from the heart, rather than to hear something that has been corroded from a non-emotional medium.

And with that said, I'm going to kinda contradict myself here. You mention musicians producing basic compositions and dry lyrics to appeal to the modern teenager...is that exactly a bad step to take? After all, music means nothing when there are no ears to listen to it. Therefore, making music directed at a certain audience should not always be frowned down upon. When giving criticism while reviewing audio on NG, a critique might be "that chord progression uses too much dissonance" or the "kick doesn't have enough bass" or "that rhythm could flow better". Why? Because it sounds better to us. The appeal will be greater among a certain audience. If we didn't want our music to grow then there would be no need reviews. Sure, reviews will help individuals progress as musicians, but certainly mostly everybody wants their slice of fame in one manner or another. How would you feel if you have a mass of more talent a couple years from now (hypothesize that the same styles retain the same level of prominence), but get the same amount of views? It may not be money driven in this case, but it could be backed by reaching the Top 30 list or achieving 100 downloads or so. I for one (and I know I'm far from being able to accomplish) wouldn't mind receiving that recognition if it means composing a techno track, for example. Although these two paragraphs are in opposition, it provides a reason of possibly why certain music of today shouldn't be looked down upon. I think warspawn made a great post regarding what makes music good, you should read what he said- furthermore, I should probably edit my blog to quote him.

So yes-I definitely do understand why you personally dislike the music of today. As a matter of fact I'm really not fond of it either, for reasons which I cannot completely explain. But there is a difference between what I dislike and what I consider "bad".

I'm also glad you brought up Soulja Boy's Crank Dat and how he uses presets, because that's what my next blog will be about...just need to conduct a survey first to gather some info...

Anyways, thanks a lot for that long, good read man. Lots of interesting discussion in your post :) . Critical debating always gets me in the mood for doing homework. which just signifies how much of a loser since its midnight on a Saturday :P