Today's Mainstream Music

[bluesno1fann]

another thing that annoys me are these fan labels: Swifties- Taylor Swift, directioners- 1D, smilers- Miley Cyrus, beliebers- Justin Bieber, little monsters- Lady Gaga, katy cats- Katy Perry, rossians- Ross Lynch, etc 

True. Though I've never heard of smilers, little monsters, katy cats, and rossians. And I think it's Swifters.

Also, there's fan lables for fans of certain rock groups as well, so it's not just for pop

[retrokid67]

another thing that annoys me are these fan labels: Swifties- Taylor Swift, directioners- 1D, smilers- Miley Cyrus, beliebers- Justin Bieber, little monsters- Lady Gaga, katy cats- Katy Perry, rossians- Ross Lynch, etc 

True. Though I've never heard of smilers, little monsters, katy cats, and rossians. And I think it's Swifters.

Also, there's fan lables for fans of certain rock groups as well, so it's not just for pop

yea that's true, I still don't see what the point of it is.  the TAMI Show had all these different artists coming together (some stood out more than others) but at the end when they all came out they were all having fun together.  Now it seems with these new artists they have this "look at me, I'm the sh*t" thing going on and its more about the image now than the music which really sucks.  .  a great example of this are the We Are the World videos 1985 vs 2010 (I didn't know at the time that Brian and Al were in it cuz back in 2010 I hadn't become a BB fan yet).  in the first one they all were told to leave their egos at the door and it shows because everyone worked together and no one tried to outshine someone else.  in the new one......it was just one big MESS  and I wish Brian had taken Michael's place making the arrangements of the vocal blend  I know if Michael was here it wouldn't have sounded like that (man I miss him so much) 

[feelsflow]

So many people insist there is still good music being made - so how come I've not heard any of it?

There is.  Give a listen to the best "new" artist of the past twelve years, Sam Beam aka Iron and Wine.  You can go back more than twelve years if you search out his lo-fi demos.

I haven't got around to doing my top albums of 2013 yet, but Ghost on Ghost rests comfortably at the top.  I've listened to this over fifty times, all the way through since it's release in April.  Often hitting re-play on several tracks.  Beach Boys fans should give all his records a listen, but anything from 2007 on might just surprise them.  His recent live set-up is strings to the right, horns to the left.  He uses "Brian" type instrumentation like double harmonicas and clarinet.  Musically, he can touch on Brian's 1966 thru 1971 sound at will.  Listen to "Joy" or "Baby Center Stage" over on you-tube and see if you can hear it as well.  Don't stop there though, he's been great for all the years I've been listening. 

Now it is hard to tell when the next album will come along that will touch my soul like this one did.  Or the next artist.  But it won't have auto-tune on it.  There has always been pitch correction and whatnot since the 60's, but until auto-tune runs it's course their will be no truly great music made by those who continue to use it as a crutch for not being able to sing.  I hate to say what my parents said, but they all sound alike.  Auto-tune does that.  The Beach Boys were wrong to use it.  I want Real, and I'm not the only one.  Let it go flat once in awhile.  That's what I love so much about Brian's mid-70's vocals.  When will BRI wake up and release Adult/Child?  I could go on, but that's off-topic, and you wouldn't want this thread to do that now would you.  That leaves instrumentals, and from what I see on the survivor threads...you young folks don't have much interest in those.   

[pixletwin]

I like Lorde. I think she does good stuff.

[JohnMill]

So many people insist there is still good music being made - so how come I've not heard any of it?

There is.  Give a listen to the best "new" artist of the past twelve years, Sam Beam aka Iron and Wine.  You can go back more than twelve years if you search out his lo-fi demos.

I haven't got around to doing my top albums of 2013 yet, but Ghost on Ghost rests comfortably at the top.  I've listened to this over fifty times, all the way through since it's release in April.  Often hitting re-play on several tracks.  Beach Boys fans should give all his records a listen, but anything from 2007 on might just surprise them.  His recent live set-up is strings to the right, horns to the left.  He uses "Brian" type instrumentation like double harmonicas and clarinet.  Musically, he can touch on Brian's 1966 thru 1971 sound at will.  Listen to "Joy" or "Baby Center Stage" over on you-tube and see if you can hear it as well.  Don't stop there though, he's been great for all the years I've been listening. 

Now it is hard to tell when the next album will come along that will touch my soul like this one did.  Or the next artist.  But it won't have auto-tune on it.  There has always been pitch correction and whatnot since the 60's, but until auto-tune runs it's course their will be no truly great music made by those who continue to use it as a crutch for not being able to sing.  I hate to say what my parents said, but they all sound alike.  Auto-tune does that.  The Beach Boys were wrong to use it.  I want Real, and I'm not the only one.  Let it go flat once in awhile.  That's what I love so much about Brian's mid-70's vocals.  When will BRI wake up and release Adult/Child?  I could go on, but that's off-topic, and you wouldn't want this thread to do that now would you.  That leaves instrumentals, and from what I see on the survivor threads...you young folks don't have much interest in those.   

I don't know where I am with all of this?  I admit I'm as guilty as anyone because at times I've thrown my hands up in there air and thought "Why can't their be a band on the radio today that sounds like The Beach Boys or The Beatles or whomever"?  But the more I think about it, the reality of it seems to be that if a band did exist, I probably wouldn't listen to them all that much.  I'll give you an example.  Around a decade or so ago, there was this song called "100 Years" by "Five For Fighting" (I think that is the name of the artist anyhow) and I heard it on the radio and I liked the song a lot and thought to myself: this song manages to tug at the same heartstrings as "When I Grow Up To Be A Man" does and heck the singer even does sound a little bit like Brian (or Carl) Wilson.  But although, I enjoyed the song I didn't go right out and buy a "Five For Fighting" CD.  The same thing happened in the eighties when The Las had that song "There She Goes" which for my money is still the closest anyone has ever come to aping the sound of The Beatles.  I didn't become a Las fan.  I liked the song and must admit hate the remake that came out a few years ago with the girl lead singer and the slowed down tempo. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that is what made the C50 so special to me because it wasn't some other act trying to sound like The Beach Boys but it was The Beach Boys themselves up there doing their thing.  So I guess what I'm trying to say is if something came on the radio that reminded me of another artist I liked, I would probably listen to it and maybe even enjoy it but I'm not sure if I'd explore it much beyond that.

[Gabo]

I'm honestly apathetic about most modern music. Just about the only modern band I like is of Montreal which is not mainstream by any means. I also like Amy Winehouse a lot. She was a much, much better singer and songwriter than Adele.

f*** Adele.

[bluesno1fann]

I'm honestly apathetic about most modern music. Just about the only modern band I like is of Montreal which is not mainstream by any means. I also like Amy Winehouse a lot. She was a much, much better singer and songwriter than Adele.

f*** Adele.

Agreed!

[the captain]

With all due respect to those involved, I believe the bulk of this thread is a little pathetic. Not that people don't have a right to like and dislike anything they want--you absolutely do!--but that the idea of starting a thread with the clear intention of just reaffirming already existing shared opinions in a manner fitting of modern cable news networks is just ... unnecessary, I guess. Does an existing opinion need reaffirmation?

The comparison between lyrics earlier, too: absurd. You're taking songs written for totally different reasons, one a dance track intended to empower (or at least sell merchandise to) young women, the other from a wholly different place. You could just as easily pick simple or silly lyrics from the "classic" era--say, "Love Me Do" or "Be Bop A Lula," and compare them to the more mature and interesting lyricists of today, such as the recently mentioned Sam Beam, or John Darnielle, or Earl Sweatshirt (on the interesting front, not the mature front).

The idea of whether musicians are better or worse for full ownership of their products, too (meaning songwriting, playing instruments, singing, producing, etc. versus just singing), doesn't hold water with me. The concept of a self-contained band barely existed before the Beatles (not to say there weren't such bands, just that it wasn't even considered before them). Most of the greatest instrumentalists or singers throughout history weren't composers. Many great composers aren't great performers. If I were a great writer, would my lack of a great speaking voice to recite my work aloud be a hindrance?

For those seeking good modern music, it isn't hard to find. I'd recommend the "best of 2013" thread in this very forum for some ideas. Outlets like Spotify or Youtube make free trials easy enough.

All that said, if you still don't like it, fine. You don't have to like anything. But it's pretty myopic to assume your opinion is in any way objectively correct.

[bluesno1fann]

another thing that annoys me are these fan labels: Swifties- Taylor Swift, directioners- 1D, smilers- Miley Cyrus, beliebers- Justin Bieber, little monsters- Lady Gaga, katy cats- Katy Perry, rossians- Ross Lynch, etc 

True. Though I've never heard of smilers, little monsters, katy cats, and rossians. And I think it's Swifters.

Also, there's fan lables for fans of certain rock groups as well, so it's not just for pop

yea that's true, I still don't see what the point of it is.  the TAMI Show had all these different artists coming together (some stood out more than others) but at the end when they all came out they were all having fun together.  Now it seems with these new artists they have this "look at me, I'm the sh*t" thing going on and its more about the image now than the music which really sucks.  .  a great example of this are the We Are the World videos 1985 vs 2010 (I didn't know at the time that Brian and Al were in it cuz back in 2010 I hadn't become a BB fan yet).  in the first one they all were told to leave their egos at the door and it shows because everyone worked together and no one tried to outshine someone else.  in the new one......it was just one big MESS  and I wish Brian had taken Michael's place making the arrangements of the vocal blend  I know if Michael was here it wouldn't have sounded like that (man I miss him so much) 

The original We Are The World wasn't too bad, I enjoyed it.
Although, if you take away the clusterfuck of singers from that, it's only an average song.

The remake I just listened to is so much more horrible in comparison. I mean, why did they choose Bieber of all people to be the first singer? He sounds like a little kid as usual. A lot of the singers I don't care for, and the few that used autotune pissed me off.

While I was surprised to see Brian and Al in the chorus, I still don't care. You couldn't even here them, and they chose not to let them sing solo, instead giving it to crappy auto-tuned singers.

And then there's the rap section. If all of the above didn't destroy the remake, it was this. I have nothing else to say about that.

I almost wish I never listened to the remake!

[Myk Luhv]

the captain knows what's up. This forum's antipathy towards hip-hop is incredibly annoying too.

[bluesno1fann]

the captain knows what's up. This forum's antipathy towards hip-hop is incredibly annoying too.

It's not so much hip-hop which we have a serious problem with.
It's the bloody autotune!

[the captain]

the captain knows what's up. This forum's antipathy towards hip-hop is incredibly annoying too.

It's not so much hip-hop which we have a serious problem with.
It's the goshdarn autotune!

Well that definitely goes far beyond hip hop, then. It's a production fad, nothing more and nothing less. People say it's proof modern singers can't carry a tune, which is an analogous argument to the one about guitarists in the '80s and early '90s being unable to play just because there was an explosion of effects used, also purely as trend. (People like Adrian Belew certainly could play the guitar...) I understand, and on the overreliance on pitch correction software even agree, but it doesn't matter. Sometimes you have to see through the fad-sheen into the substance.

For those who may believe hip hop is shallow or lacking artistic merit, I'd point you to a couple relatively recent songs I think are among the best of the new decade:

Earl Sweatshirt, "Chum." The kid (and I say that because he is just a kid, or barely beyond it) is as interesting a lyricist as I've heard in any genre in a while. The wordplay is fantastic, with internal rhymes worthy of VDP. (Warning, it's explicit, for those who worry about such things.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCbWLSZrZfw

Brother Ali, "Letter to My Countrymen." For those looking for some social conscience in what might be perceived as a genre lacking it. (Also based in my hometown, which gives him a special place in my heart.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2cVUXcbFA

[JohnMill]

With all due respect to those involved, I believe the bulk of this thread is a little pathetic. Not that people don't have a right to like and dislike anything they want--you absolutely do!--but that the idea of starting a thread with the clear intention of just reaffirming already existing shared opinions in a manner fitting of modern cable news networks is just ... unnecessary, I guess. Does an existing opinion need reaffirmation?

The comparison between lyrics earlier, too: absurd. You're taking songs written for totally different reasons, one a dance track intended to empower (or at least sell merchandise to) young women, the other from a wholly different place. You could just as easily pick simple or silly lyrics from the "classic" era--say, "Love Me Do" or "Be Bop A Lula," and compare them to the more mature and interesting lyricists of today, such as the recently mentioned Sam Beam, or John Darnielle, or Earl Sweatshirt (on the interesting front, not the mature front).

The idea of whether musicians are better or worse for full ownership of their products, too (meaning songwriting, playing instruments, singing, producing, etc. versus just singing), doesn't hold water with me. The concept of a self-contained band barely existed before the Beatles (not to say there weren't such bands, just that it wasn't even considered before them). Most of the greatest instrumentalists or singers throughout history weren't composers. Many great composers aren't great performers. If I were a great writer, would my lack of a great speaking voice to recite my work aloud be a hindrance?

For those seeking good modern music, it isn't hard to find. I'd recommend the "best of 2013" thread in this very forum for some ideas. Outlets like Spotify or Youtube make free trials easy enough.

All that said, if you still don't like it, fine. You don't have to like anything. But it's pretty myopic to assume your opinion is in any way objectively correct.

The problem is your opinion much like the others in this thread are subjective.  It's sort of with the tacit understanding going into discussions like these that we are entering the realm of subjectivity not objectivity.  What remains is whether or not the subjective opinions are arguable/reasonable or not.  In regards to your argument about the artistic validity of artists that did not compose their own music, while nobody is saying they are devoid of any talent at all, there are those of us (myself included obviously) that believe their talents pale in comparison to those who did.  Remember my Babe Ruth analogy?  Ty Cobb was arguably a better pure hitter than Ruth, maybe the greatest hitter ever to play the game.  But Cobb wasn't as versatile as Ruth and therefore while he may be the greatest hitter of all time, is not regarded as the greatest baseball player of all time.  Again versatility counts.  If you were a great writer but lacked a great speaking voice, it would not take away from your abilities as a writer but would most certainly be a strike against you if put up against someone who was on equal footing as you as a writer but also was a fantastic orator as well.

The problem I've always found, subjectively speaking of course in putting something like "Love Me Do" on the same level as aesthetically banal as a Taylor Swift song for example is that in the case of almost every Beatles song there is something to validate it's merit as an addition to their musical canon.  "Love Me Do" is bluesy as hell and for the time it was released was extremely different from what was on the radio in the UK.  Several times over the years as a Beatles fan, I've found myself wondering why The Beatles simply didn't flip their first single and have "PS I Love You" as the A-side and "Love Me Do" as the b-side.  From a lyrical standpoint, "PS I Love You" is the stronger composition and has a pretty good McCartney vocal on it to boot.  The answer I come up with is that "Love Me Do" with both it's tempo and harmonica was so different from what was hitting the pop charts at the time is that it had to be the A-side.  Along those similar lines is the reason I believe they rejected "How Do You Do It".  Sometimes as an artist being different works to their advantage as an artist, sometimes it doesn't.  "Love Me Do" hit #17 in the autumn of 1962 on the UK charts which at the time was an accomplishment for a largely unknown band.  There was enough about "Love Me Do" to this day justify it as an addition to The Beatles canon as there is for "Little Child" or any of their weaker songs lyrically speaking.  The problem that I find with these other acts that people try to include in discussion somehow is I really don't see anything unique about them or the songs they write in the first place.  They aren't necessarily different or innovative or noteworthy in my opinion in regards to anything else that is on the radio.  In 1962, "Love Me Do" was!

[the captain]

Nice post, JohnMill.

I fully agree about subjectivity, but I guess that is the heart of the whole thing: I'm not claiming superiority of my opinion, or rejecting the quality of anything else. Rather, I'm admitting openly the subjectivity, and questioning whether other taking the position as if it were objectively true is valid.

The baseball reference would be lost on me if it weren't for you saying so, because frankly I hate baseball. Care to translate to basketball!? (Kidding. I get your point.)

With respect to that last point, I can't argue against it well. In case I haven't made the point, I am in no way diminishing the historical greats, and in fact I believe the Beatles are indeed (despite what I see as a lot of backlash against them, presumably because once anything is ingrained it is natural for people to oppose it) the best pop band of all time. So let's be clear, I agree on that. But if I were to argue, I'd say that modern listeners think they are hearing that "something" as validation in their music that someone else hears in his.

More honestly, though, what I'd say is that time eventually whittles away and leaves what matters. To think nothing modern will--in 10, 20, 30 years--qualify is almost definitely silly, because no point in time that has come before was ever lacking quality, even if every single era was looked down upon by those of previous ones. Realistically, isn't it logical to assume that (as an example) a 50-year-old at any given time is going to bemoan modern music, preferring what he heard when he was 15-25, even as that next generation is building something of value that isn't intended to appeal to the 50-year-old? That's really what I'm getting at.

[JohnMill]

More honestly, though, what I'd say is that time eventually whittles away and leaves what matters. To think nothing modern will--in 10, 20, 30 years--qualify is almost definitely silly, because no point in time that has come before was ever lacking quality, even if every single era was looked down upon by those of previous ones. Realistically, isn't it logical to assume that (as an example) a 50-year-old at any given time is going to bemoan modern music, preferring what he heard when he was 15-25, even as that next generation is building something of value that isn't intended to appeal to the 50-year-old? That's really what I'm getting at.

I can understand that, in fact I read an article a few weeks ago about Miley Cyrus who has been discussed a bit in this thread that in what she is trying to do currently with her current persona, is alienate or agitate anyone say over thirty because that will endear her to her audience that fall under that mendoza line (sorry another baseball reference).  Whether or not that is true, what I would advise anyone who wishes to see Miley Cyrus evaporate from pop culture to do is to simply ignore her because these days bad publicity is almost as good as positive publicity.  Beyond that, all Miley Cyrus is trying to do right now (and I know this will seem like blasphemy to some) is the same thing The Beatles were trying to do around "Rubber Soul" or Brian Wilson was trying to do around "Pet Sounds" and that is try to distance themselves from their previous incarnation as a pop band that marketing to teenage girls.  Paul McCartney admits as much in the Anthology saying that around the time of RS, he and John Lennon felt that they had written enough of the "Thank You Girls" and now it was time to "start writing novels".  I'm guessing if you asked Brian Wilson back in 1966 you would find that he was on a similar wavelength in where he was trying to steer The Beach Boys with records like "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE".

The reason that the endeavors of The Beach Boys and The Beatles to change their image are looked upon so favorably and Miley Cyrus' similar endeavors are regarded negatively are twofold.  First in regards to The Beatles and The Beach Boys, we have decades of hindsight now where we as the music buying public can gauge for ourselves the immense contributions both bands made to the musical spectrum.  With Cyrus, we don't have the benefit of hindsight yet.  Secondly while The Beatles and The Beach Boys advanced their cause by reshaping their music, Miley Cyrus is advancing her cause by reshaping her image by what some would perceive to be lewd public acts.  But I think at it's core, all parties were then and now striving for the same thing and that is to remain relevant in the highly competitive world of pop music.  

Which again brings me back to my argument about artists who are unable to generate original material.  I believe at it's core the reason why The Beatles for example endured is because they were always able to dictate their own course by continually being able to generate original material.  The problem Cyrus is going to find (as well as Bieber and anyone else you want to throw into that category) is that once they begin to age, they are going to lose a significant amount of their appeal.  Whats more is that there is someone out there in an office as we speak is already devising their successors ready to supplant them in the next several years.  So they are going to be facing an extreme amount of adversity at both ends.  For example Britney Spears as we speak is living off a reputation she established a decade ago and while I predict she will always be able to ride that wave of nostalgia with a section of the buying public, she will never again reach the heights she did ten years ago.  Even less can be said for the multitude of pop acts that preceded her.  Debbie Gibson became an actress, I'm not sure where Tiffany is, New Kids On The Block never again will dominate the charts like they did in the early nineties and while I am a huge fan of "The Partridge Family", where exactly is David Cassidy these days?  Surely the individual who as of last time I checked (which was several years ago now) still had on the books the largest fan club numbers of all time, deserved a better fate?

Before I close I would be remiss not to mention that another problem Cyrus is facing that even though her "shock and awe" tactics might grab headlines, they are far from original themselves.  I believe around a decade before Cyrus was born, Madonna was appearing on MTV in a wedding dress, doing suggestive dancing (if you can call it that) while singing "Like A Virgin".  People decried her acts then much in the same way they decry Cyrus now.  Society hasn't changed in that regard, much in the same way that Cyrus hasn't really changed anything significant from what Madonna did back in 1981.  Originality counts too.

[the captain]

Another wonderful post. And one thing it does is raise the multifaced universe of pop music. The songs themselves matter. The performances matter. But sales matter, and without them, it's hard for anyone to know much about the songs or performances. How to generate sales? Marketing. Image. The relative successes or failures are debatable, but modern artists are hardly the first to try to shock or confuse their elders or audiences.

In case it hasn't been clear, I'm not saying modern music is superior to the all-time greats, but rather just that there will be greats who are eventually culled from what is now modern music. (And there is plenty of music that is entirely listenable despite not being great: that enjoyable but forgettable mass of mediocrity that every generation has, allowing future generations to go back in time to research "if you liked A, you may like B!")

Really no other comment at this point.

[Mike's Beard]

f*** Adele.

Eeeeeeeewwwwww, I'd rather not.

[Mike's Beard]

So many people insist there is still good music being made - so how come I've not heard any of it?

There is.  Give a listen to the best "new" artist of the past twelve years, Sam Beam aka Iron and Wine.  You can go back more than twelve years if you search out his lo-fi demos.

I haven't got around to doing my top albums of 2013 yet, but Ghost on Ghost rests comfortably at the top.  I've listened to this over fifty times, all the way through since it's release in April.  Often hitting re-play on several tracks.  Beach Boys fans should give all his records a listen, but anything from 2007 on might just surprise them.  His recent live set-up is strings to the right, horns to the left.  He uses "Brian" type instrumentation like double harmonicas and clarinet.  Musically, he can touch on Brian's 1966 thru 1971 sound at will.  Listen to "Joy" or "Baby Center Stage" over on you-tube and see if you can hear it as well.  Don't stop there though, he's been great for all the years I've been listening. 

Now it is hard to tell when the next album will come along that will touch my soul like this one did.  Or the next artist.  But it won't have auto-tune on it.  There has always been pitch correction and whatnot since the 60's, but until auto-tune runs it's course their will be no truly great music made by those who continue to use it as a crutch for not being able to sing.  I hate to say what my parents said, but they all sound alike.  Auto-tune does that.  The Beach Boys were wrong to use it.  I want Real, and I'm not the only one.  Let it go flat once in awhile.  That's what I love so much about Brian's mid-70's vocals.  When will BRI wake up and release Adult/Child?  I could go on, but that's off-topic, and you wouldn't want this thread to do that now would you.  That leaves instrumentals, and from what I see on the survivor threads...you young folks don't have much interest in those.   

I've just had a listen to a few of his songs, while they are better than the average new song on today's radio, they don't make me want to rush over to amazon and buy up all his stuff. The guy can certainly sing for real, I'll give him that but the arrangements have a slight air of (shudder) James Blunt about them at times.

[the captain]

So many people insist there is still good music being made - so how come I've not heard any of it?

There is.  Give a listen to the best "new" artist of the past twelve years, Sam Beam aka Iron and Wine.  You can go back more than twelve years if you search out his lo-fi demos.

I haven't got around to doing my top albums of 2013 yet, but Ghost on Ghost rests comfortably at the top.  I've listened to this over fifty times, all the way through since it's release in April.  Often hitting re-play on several tracks.  Beach Boys fans should give all his records a listen, but anything from 2007 on might just surprise them.  His recent live set-up is strings to the right, horns to the left.  He uses "Brian" type instrumentation like double harmonicas and clarinet.  Musically, he can touch on Brian's 1966 thru 1971 sound at will.  Listen to "Joy" or "Baby Center Stage" over on you-tube and see if you can hear it as well.  Don't stop there though, he's been great for all the years I've been listening.  

Now it is hard to tell when the next album will come along that will touch my soul like this one did.  Or the next artist.  But it won't have auto-tune on it.  There has always been pitch correction and whatnot since the 60's, but until auto-tune runs it's course their will be no truly great music made by those who continue to use it as a crutch for not being able to sing.  I hate to say what my parents said, but they all sound alike.  Auto-tune does that.  The Beach Boys were wrong to use it.  I want Real, and I'm not the only one.  Let it go flat once in awhile.  That's what I love so much about Brian's mid-70's vocals.  When will BRI wake up and release Adult/Child?  I could go on, but that's off-topic, and you wouldn't want this thread to do that now would you.  That leaves instrumentals, and from what I see on the survivor threads...you young folks don't have much interest in those.  

I've just had a listen to a few of his songs, while they are better than the average new song on today's radio, they don't make me want to rush over to amazon and buy up all his stuff. The guy can certainly sing for real, I'll give him that but the arrangements have a slight air of (shudder) James Blunt about them at times.

Try some from The Shepherd's Dog, specifically "Lovesong of the Buzzard," "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," "The Devil Never Sleeps," or maybe most of all, "Resurrection Fern." Very nice, all.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Contemporary artists you all definitely need to listen to: St. Vincent, Arcade Fire, Tegan and Sara, The Shins, Sufjan Stevens, The Decemberists, Metric, Neko Case, Jenny Lewis/Rilo Kiley, Grizzly Bear, Modest Mouse, Phoenix, Spoon, Regina Spektor, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, Beach House, Animal Collective, Death Cab for Cutie...  Then there are also still-relevant groups who have been around for awhile like Radiohead, Wilco, Flaming Lips, singers like Aimee Mann. 

[Gabo]

The main problem I have with a lot of contemporary indie (I hear it all the time in college) is that it is not nearly as melodic as a lot of music from the 60s and before. I know that's a huge claim to make, but let's face it, you aren't going to hear a lot of the kind of super catchy melodies I adore on most modern releases.


I like Animal Collective, though I find their early work (before Sung Tongs), horrible. It just sounds like stoners masturbating with electronics and forgetting to actually write songs. I honestly hate the huge emphasis a lot of modern bands put on ambience rather than songcraft. I am not musically conservative by any means but I know what I like (melodies) and if I don't hear one, I won't give the song a chance.

I have The Crane Wife by The Decemberists but I don't really like it. I love the song Yankee Bayonet but I hate how Colin Meloy tries to make every song into a work of literature. It's the kind of music a lot of polite English majors listen to, not real music fans.

I like Sufjan Stevens but he has more or less the kind of fan base The Decemberists have. I mean, I don't really care who his fans are (The Beach Boys were, of course, a bubblegum pop band), but I see them all the time and hear about him all the time.

I honestly like being trapped in my little world of music. It feels empowering having tastes and interests that aren't shared by others.

[Myk Luhv]

I, too, like being elitist about music and looking down on other people for their tastes and preferences!

[retrokid67]

With all due respect to those involved, I believe the bulk of this thread is a little pathetic. Not that people don't have a right to like and dislike anything they want--you absolutely do!--but that the idea of starting a thread with the clear intention of just reaffirming already existing shared opinions in a manner fitting of modern cable news networks is just ... unnecessary, I guess. Does an existing opinion need reaffirmation?

The comparison between lyrics earlier, too: absurd. You're taking songs written for totally different reasons, one a dance track intended to empower (or at least sell merchandise to) young women, the other from a wholly different place. You could just as easily pick simple or silly lyrics from the "classic" era--say, "Love Me Do" or "Be Bop A Lula," and compare them to the more mature and interesting lyricists of today, such as the recently mentioned Sam Beam, or John Darnielle, or Earl Sweatshirt (on the interesting front, not the mature front).

The idea of whether musicians are better or worse for full ownership of their products, too (meaning songwriting, playing instruments, singing, producing, etc. versus just singing), doesn't hold water with me. The concept of a self-contained band barely existed before the Beatles (not to say there weren't such bands, just that it wasn't even considered before them). Most of the greatest instrumentalists or singers throughout history weren't composers. Many great composers aren't great performers. If I were a great writer, would my lack of a great speaking voice to recite my work aloud be a hindrance?

For those seeking good modern music, it isn't hard to find. I'd recommend the "best of 2013" thread in this very forum for some ideas. Outlets like Spotify or Youtube make free trials easy enough.

All that said, if you still don't like it, fine. You don't have to like anything. But it's pretty myopic to assume your opinion is in any way objectively correct.

you make some great points but I was expecting to get mixed reactions, I know that not everyone would agree and that's fine, my question was "what do you guys think?"  .  there's been a variety of responses which is good  

[Gabo]

I, too, like being elitist about music and looking down on other people for their tastes and preferences!

I'm more apathetic than elitist I would say. I honestly don't think music today is necessarily shittier than it's ever been. I'm just too busy listening to The Beach Boys and Astrud Gilberto to really bother.

[the captain]

I honestly like being trapped in my little world of music. It feels empowering having tastes and interests that aren't shared by others.

You're welcome to your taste, of course. I'd never doubt them. But you realize that last sentence has nothing to do with music, right? So IF (and this is a presupposition) you're keeping yourself in a self-imposed bubble just for the feeling of empowerment for the uniqueness of your taste, all that is actually happening is you're depriving yourself of what else is out there for a feeling that you're giving yourself. The music itself isn't giving you those feelings, but rather your feelings about your particular uniqueness.

I will say, for what it's worth, that I spent my late teens through early 20s knowing everything (as teens are wont to do) and shunning the then-modern music for what I had learned to be great. And I don't regret a single band I fell in love with or studied in those years: every one truly is great and deserved my attention. But all that it meant was that I have since gone back to realize what music I'd missed in those years, the latter half of the '90s more or less, which would include things like Beck, Flaming Lips, Eels, Tom Waits, to name just a few.

What's worse, there is something hugely important about learning and understanding music in its own context. Think about the value people on this board give to having been Beach Boys fans in the moment, how much attention we pay to those who were there in 1963, or 1967, or 1973, or whenever. There is something irreplaceable about being in the moment itself for the music. What's great will last, and you can always revisit recordings, but why not give yourself the chance to catch the moments as they really happen?