Guardian Article: The musically fragmented decade

Placid_Casual

I've noticed on the best of year/decade threads that several people have mentioned that it hasn't been a vintage year or decade for music.

With that in mind, I thought this article would be of interest.
Basically, its implying that in recent years the sheer volume of good music being released has made it very difficult for people to come to a consensus of what the "great" albums of the time are.
Personally, I agree with the main point of the article - that there is more than enough good music being released to keep all listeners happy but that it is more and more difficult for new albums to be universally considered great as people are increasingly listening to different music to each other.

Thoughts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/dec/07/musically-fragmented-decade

loveissucide

I think it'll become apparent what the great albums from this decade are as time goes on.We're just so bombarded with constant new music it's impossible to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Bubs101

I think the biggest difference is not the output of music but the accesibility to it. Before I had Broadband the days used to be when I had to go to the shop, buy a Cd and then listen to it and if I wanted to change had to go to the hassle of getting a new CD and lashing it in. Now I can just change with one button. When I bought a CD I put more effort into listening to it then say if my friend burned it.

Now with such a ridiculous level of accesiblity it's rare that I'll listen to a new CD for more than a week (and that's the 1 of the 10 that gets that far) before listening to other stuff and then there's my hordes of podcasts to compete with as well. Not to mention that since everything went on a PC it has my whole back catalogue to compete with

jill_valentine

It's a really interesting article. And while I agree with the thrust of the piece, I see it in a slightly more positive light than the writer seems to - I'd rather see a musical landscape where lots of great bands can co-exist contentedly and earn a decent living than see one or two Radioheads adrift in a barren landscape of Westlife and S Club 7.

I'm glad to be around for music now - everything I want to listen to is within reach, and technology has reached a point where budding young artists can at least get a decent start and get their music out there without any label help. Maybe we'll have fewer big names, but at least it's up to me what I want to listen to.

Placid_Casual

Bubs101 wrote: »

I think the biggest difference is not the output of music but the accesibility to it. Before I had Broadband the days used to be when I had to go to the shop, buy a Cd and then listen to it and if I wanted to change had to go to the hassle of getting a new CD and lashing it in. Now I can just change with one button. When I bought a CD I put more effort into listening to it then say if my friend burned it.

Now with such a ridiculous level of accesiblity it's rare that I'll listen to a new CD for more than a week (and that's the 1 of the 10 that gets that far) before listening to other stuff and then there's my hordes of podcasts to compete with as well. Not to mention that since everything went on a PC it has my whole back catalogue to compete with

This is why I still generally buy CDs rather than download. Call me old-fashioned but I think it makes you appreciate the music more, makes it less disposable. I like to give music time and I can't really get with this thing of listening to something once and then discarding it. I can never make a decision on something after one listen. Also, I like having a physical collection of music, rather than just a bunch of computer files.

jill_valentine

I agree with that to an extent, but on the other hand, stripping a song of any physical weight means the music has to stand alone. It's either good enough to keep your attention, or it's not. That's not to say I discard everything immediately, I listen to everything a few times if I think there's any hope of it winning me over, and I hoard a huge amount of music on my hard drive and MP3 player that hasn't engaged me just yet. A recommendation from a trusted reviewer or a friend tends to make me revisit stuff I've passed over before, and sometimes it works. Grizzly Bear's latest, for instance, didn't get me at all the first few dozen times.

I do enjoy having a physical artifact to go along with the music itself, however, and if I like the album enough I'll pick up the CD afterwards. I can't remember the last time I bought an album I hadn't already heard. Because, as you say, I like having a tangible collection of the music I love.