Dumbing down of early music

[Marco Gilardetti]

They also still had not too many distractions, saying they had different priorities might be a better way to put it though. As music seems to be in competition with other means of expression (and even sport) for cultural importance.

More good points here. I think it is objective that at certain times music is dumbed (and as a matter of fact I totally subscribe your comments about late '90s music). The reasons why it is so are most probably multi-factorial and not always easy to devise and describe. Politics are also involved in my opinion, at least to some degree or transversally.

In the case of the '50s in Italy, it was clearly politically driven. A new democratic order had to be estabilished after the fascist disaster, and the most cheesy things that had to do with family, marriage, children, religion and "well wishing" in general were emphasised if not directly sponsorised. All of this was clearly reflected in music, which doesn't mean that there were no longer cool jazz clubs downstairs, but they were niche stuff, and the music played there very rarely went on records.

In the '70s, I believe it is quite undisputable that the entire western world was pervaded by a political desire for change and progress. In this scenario, culture was considered an important pathway to freedom and self-fulfilment, and pretending to be intellectuals (or supposedly so) was even fashionable. Families even from the lower classes spent considerable sums to buy a Hi-Fi system, as listening to quality music was considered an important part in family entertainment as well as in children education. Progressive Rock in particular found a fertile society in which to develop and be appreciated.

The '80s bore witness to the tremendous disappointment that followed the illusions of the '70s, but the New Wave nevertheless managed to intercept the changes in a society increasingly devoted to selfishness, as well as the buzzing city life so fashionable in those years, during which it was widely believed that financial growth could be limitless.

It is hard for me to understand how it could happen at all that in the '90s such a vast society so used to listening to good music had ended up taking their Hi-Fi systems to the basement, the antechamber to the dump. In a way this was also "politically driven", in the negative sense that nobody moved a finger to at least culturally guide a society destroyed by economic reflux and displaced by the so-called "globalisation". In this scenery, you are most probably right: other media/interests eroded the time that was previously devoted to music listening, like the early chats on internet (that were literally a time well), and later the social media and the digital pay-TV, that ended up disintegrating the only socialising aspect of analog television: that is to watch the same TV show that also most classmates or business colleagues watched, and then comment it at school or at work.

[An Balores]

Marco, you have taken us up to the 1990's but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the developments in this century...............

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thanks for asking, but it's very hard for me to draw any conclusion on recent decades for two orders of reasons.

The first is that I am ageing, and with age, no matter how much one may oppose to it, one tends to be nostalgic about music, society, friends, perhaps even weather (the skies were blue...) of his youth. I definitely didn't have a happy and succesful youth, so nostalgia in general is not for me, however I hate so much this irrationality of old people to see old things as more beautiful (had to swallow way too much of this stuff when I was a teeneager) that I tend to avoid giving opinions whenever I have the fear of falling into this trap.

The second is that the "musical market", or better yet the relics of it, has gone really too far. To some extent, I think that cylinders, records, LPs and perhaps at least up to a point in time CDs, are reasonably comparable to each other. But then as we come to "digital" music, it's like air, it's nothing: you can't touch it, you can't see it, its value is indefinte, can be hidden or instead forcibly pushed at almost no cost for a big provider, and as such it has a very slight interest for me and as a consequence I can't really say that I know it deeply. One thing is saving money (used to take weeks) and then take time to go to a shop (one afternoon minimum) and then see if they still have for sale the cylinder/record/LP/CD that you wanted (ONE record, so the choice had to be extremely careful) and then carry it home, another is to click on a file. It's like "oranges and apples" at school, they simply don't compare, it can't be done. When I read that artist XY has reached a number of clicks/views considered on par with the sales of - say - Michael Jackson and hance has been rewarded a platinum award just like Jacko, I can't refrain from laughing MAO. And as talking of recent years would imply talking of music perhaps released only digitally, I think I'm not in the right perspective to do it objectively. I'm one of those that buy a record, turn on the Hi-Fi, dims the lights, and listen to the music repeated times before getting an idea.

I also tend to dislike whatever is rap/trap etc. so I believe that, really, younger people should say better than I would if there's anything worth treasuring in the music of the last two dacades. It would be even too easy to say "it's made with machines it's not even music", but I remember reading on this very board someone very intelligently replying that "who says that, usually doesn't even have the remote idea of what such machines are, and would be absolutely unable to get a single note out of them" - a blow that hit me hard just about elder being nostalgic and blah blah blah. To put it bluntly, most new wave of the '80s was made with sequencers and synthesizers, and elders smashed my ears repeating over and over that "it was not even music, it was made with machines": I shall not reiterate the same mistake.

If I really had to sum it up, the names that I would save for posterity are few, and most if not all of them are niche; but again I reckon that at my age I may very well be biased.

[An Balores]

Thank you for your considered reply, Marco. We would like to think that, with age, one has more experience and thus more refined discretion!

I am not qualified to speak about post-millennial music as I rarely listen to any of it. But I do have some more general thoughts.

It can be argued that the main corpus of popular songs in any period reflect the mood of the times. For example, the music of the 20's generally reflected the upbeat mood following the end of the First World War, the more sentimental songs of the 30's were a response to the depression, and the songs from the 40's often reflected the realities of WWII etc. And, of course, in any era there are songwriters/performers/genres of wildly differing quality and sophistication.

It also seems that (as a generalisation) each generation rejects the music of the previous one, and this has happened increasingly quickly as technology has developed. So, in my youth, 'prog rock' was displaced by punk and then new wave, for example. I'm not a fan of punk, but (in my opinion) a new wave band like Talking Heads was/is worth listening to, due to the greater sophistication of its musical content and lyrics. I should add that I consider 'pop' band of the 80's to have been musically more sophisticated than most of those of the 70's - it is worth noting that the 80's pop bands had a richer textural palette due to a greater use of keyboards/synthesisers than 70's pop bands. Prog rock, punk and new wave were essentially white musical forms, but if I think about black music, the beauty and sensitivity of Duke Ellington at his best smashes any rap/trap music out of the ballpark (to borrow an American expression). Even in the 70's/80's, black soul and funk music was much more musically satisfying than any rap I have ever heard, and I dislike the sentiments of its lyrics. I might argue that the ugliness I hear in a lot of modern music reflects the ugliness and divisions of the times we live in and we are brought back to an earlier comment I made in this thread about western society being in decline.

I might also argue that as it has become easier for anyone to produce music, a wider range of genres has become inevitable (after all, the argument ran that three-chord punk allowed anyone to be in a band. And the development of home recording has also enabled anyone to have a go, with varying musical results).

But all this is my opinion and some may think differently.

As a footnote, this article I just now discovered is very relevant to the discussion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2 ... f-america/

[CarlosV]

I might also argue that as it has become easier for anyone to produce music, a wider range of genres has become inevitable (after all, the argument ran that three-chord punk allowed anyone to be in a band. And the development of home recording has also enabled anyone to have a go, with varying musical results).

Quite interesting discussion! Your comment above about how easy it is to make music today reminded me of a recent article on the Feb 5, 2024 issue of New Yorker about Lucien Grainge, the CEO of Universal and the most powerful person in the music industry today, on how he is working to understand the capabilities, find its value and then utilize artificial intelligence to boost the music industry. AI will be able not only to imitate voices in an indiscernible way, as it already does today, but to create à la carte music based on the demand of the user, like a theme, a style or a sequence of sounds. This will open the spectrum way outside the three-chord songs, to a brand new Bach's fugue, or a reunion of Charlie Parker and John Coltrane improvising on Hey Jude. The technology will even address nostalgic people: you fan of Elvis that pines about him not living long enough to record the Macarena? Just a few clicks and he will be singing it in your headphones - and Mr Grainge will collect his share in copyrights or any other creative means to keep the industry going strong.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thank you for your considered reply, Marco. We would like to think that, with age, one has more experience and thus more refined discretion!

I'd say that's exactly what your wording seems to imply: wishful thinking...

I agree with most of the points of your message. I also liked very much the new wave when it arose, as well as the electronic music that mostly goes under the silly name of krautrock, and most of the less exasperated part of the heavy metal. All I can say is that I don't recognise (or very rarely do) the same pioneering spirit, the same desire to innovate, the same excitement in today's music. Wether this is objective data (I believe so), or just me getting older, I'll leave it to posterity.

[...] Lucien Grainge, the CEO of Universal and the most powerful person in the music industry today, on how he is working to understand the capabilities, find its value and then utilize artificial intelligence to boost the music industry. AI will be able not only to imitate voices in an indiscernible way, as it already does today, but to create à la carte music based on the demand of the user, like a theme, a style or a sequence of sounds.

Again in my humble opinion (but posterity will be free to disprove me) it is this type of businessmen that dumbs music. I don't know him so making assumptions would be unfair, but in my mind the idea forms of a rockefeller who knows nothing about music, and possibly doesn't even have a real Hi-Fi at home - he doesn't have time anyway - and in the best case scenario asks Alexa to put on some random playlist. Whatever. Not only he's not concerned about how to discover new talents and new directions, not only does he have a grim rearguard vision, but he intends to pursue his business plans in the most cheap and dumb possible way. Ideally, without involving any human being.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone would be interested in listening to John Coltrane knowing that there's no John Coltrane. I believe that also the Bach's fuge not written by Bach, initial technical interest exhausted, will be quickly forgotten, or buried by the greyness of hundreds more non-Bach Bach's fugues.

But again: at times rubbish has been given to the public, and the public showed appreciation for it. The Kiss has just announced a "tour" in which they will be no longer on stage, but "avatars" (?) will take their place. We'll see how it goes.

[An Balores]

"I find it hard to imagine that anyone would be interested in listening to John Coltrane knowing that there's no John Coltrane."
I wonder. The fact that 'tribute bands' are so popular might suggest otherwise. If you like the sound of Coltrane's horn, you might want to hear more of it, even if it is AI and not actually Coltrane himself. And if you happened to be a fan of King Oliver and Jelly Roll Morton, you would know that they only recorded two tracks together - King Porter Stomp and Tom Cat Blues. Would fans not want to hear how these two legendary jazz musicians might have recorded Dippermouth Blues, or perhaps New Orleans Stomp together? Or how about how AI could release jazz performers of the 78rmp era from the restrictions of a three minute recording? In real life, extended improvisations in live performance would have given musicians freedom from the confines of a three minute recording - what would vintage jazz fans give to hear Oliver and Armstrong perhaps swapping choruses one after another in an extended performance of Tiger Rag, for example?
Interesting.....

[CarlosV]

[

Again in my humble opinion (but posterity will be free to disprove me) it is this type of businessmen that dumbs music. I don't know him so making assumptions would be unfair, but in my mind the idea forms of a rockefeller who knows nothing about music, and possibly doesn't even have a real Hi-Fi at home - he doesn't have time anyway - and in the best case scenario asks Alexa to put on some random playlist. Whatever. Not only he's not concerned about how to discover new talents and new directions, not only does he have a grim rearguard vision, but he intends to pursue his business plans in the most cheap and dumb possible way. Ideally, without involving any human being.

Actually, Marco, I too had never heard of Grainge until I read that article, but he is a veteran of the record industry, that discovered and recorded many artists, including people like Amy Whinehouse. The uniqueness of his talent is that he bridges the artistic side of the industry with the business ends like distribution and monetization - and according to the article, he is a tough negotiator. He understood a long time ago that in order to survive he had to team up with these people you described above, who actually do not understand anything or care about music, but hold the keys of its distribution, like Google with its YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music etc.

As to generating interest in AI-generated music, I would not discount it offhand. As An mentioned, there is an old and strong nostalgia market that keeps Glenn Miller ghost band alive 80 years after his death, there are Beatles imitation bands in every major city, etc. But nostalgia is only a small portion of the realm where AI can insert itself. As I mentioned, AI will enable everyone to create music, including tone-deaf people, that will flood the net with their productions. Who's gonna watch and listen to them? I don't know, but who would imagine that Tik-Tok would become the most successful medium today, with its crude 10 sec videos, most done by and addressed to dimwitted morons? The writing is on the wall: take classical music, that today only reaches 1% of the total listening public, and declining as time goes by. Admittedly classical music was never popular outside of Vienna in the XIX century, and even purists do not accept Strauss as a respectable composer, after all people danced to his music! And take popular music: it has overwhelmingly consisted of atrocious music since the start of recorded sound, and time has filtered out the junk and retained a small portion of artists and records that stood over the years. Just take an example that is dear to us collectors: fox-trots recorded in the twenties are nice to play in gramophones, but I doubt that anyone in this forum plays that vast majority of any of these records more than once, simply because the music is dull, boring and mechanical. Exceptions may amount to 10% of the production, and those records that people still play today obscure the 90% that nobody wants to hear. Today's production is not different, the problem brought by modernity being the excess of offer, gazillions of all genres of music are ready to enter your ears at your fingertips.

[Marco Gilardetti]

The fact that 'tribute bands' are so popular might suggest otherwise.

I get your point, but on the other hand I would argue that they're so successful because they're real people playing real instruments in real pubs or real theatres, where real people meet. They give to the public "the real thing" that the actual bands are no longer able/willing to give. Some of their shows are so hard to set up (I think of The Musical Box re-enacted tour of The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, for example) that they fetched the admiration even of the actual bands themselves (Genesis in this case). When the same tribute bands happen to record an album - which is very seldom the case, and in most cases it's just one of those "tribute" albums together with other bands and artists - such albums generally raise no interest, and sales are very poor.

I believe we'll have a "litmus test" shortly, as The Kiss announced they will no longer tour, but instead they'll make a "virtual tour" where "avatars" (?) will "play" in their place. To some degree it's a first test. We'll see how their followers will react, which will be the prices of the tickets and for which venues, and which will be the sales figures. As far as I'm concerned, the news alone is enough to make me feel bored to tears.

he is a veteran of the record industry, that discovered and recorded many artists, including people like Amy Whinehouse.

Well... Amy Winehouse was discovered by a circle of friends, not by a major, and for goodness' sake it would have been much, much better if she had remained a niche artist, followed by her early manager, who was fond of her and really loved her. Actually, I think that her short and disgraceful life remains as one of the clearest examples of how artists are atrociously managed by record companies and their executives. Really not an argument in favour of Grainge, nor anyone of his managers I'm afraid.

Actually, I could very well anticipate the success of TikTok. Give rubbish to people, and they will love rubbish is my motto. Nothing new under the sun: the ancient Romans with their arenas already understood this very clearly. Most people, I'd say 97%, is not descerning at all - they will simply ingest whatever is given to them. As a society, it would be of reciprocal interest to drive education and culture towards what is culturally higher and more relevant. In modern times, this, at least here in Europe, was positively driven up to a certain point in time. Recently, it has been totally let go, and acritically left in the hands of IT giants, with results that are under everybody's eyes.

I have also very serious doubts that a flood of offer would be beneficial to anything. Floods in general have never been beneficial to humanity. I agree that there are countless examples of 78s that are forgettable to say the least; but still they were played by a band, recorded, pressed on hardware material, distributed, marketed - I mean it is obvious that it was thought that, at an appropriate price, they would sell, someone would buy them. There was some intelligence and marketing strategy behind them. Now we're on another level: self-made rubbish by non-discerning people addressed to non-specific target populations at nearly no cost (that is: masked by a flood of commercial ads). Now possibly even AI will generate and diffuse rubbish as crap thrown into a fan. How can this be beneficial to anyone, and how can this be even remotely thought as "progress", is definitely beyond my comprehension, I have to admit.