Has social media destroyed music?

Brave_Horatius · 18-02-2016 08:50PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Not always. For a few brief years it was also about having a guitar solo the length of an acid trip.

On another note I wonder how various late musicians would have dealt with social media. I reckon John Lennon's Instragram would be full of lame "inspirational" type photos while Sid Vicious's Twitter feed would mostly consist of expletive filled rants & public spats between him & Nancy.

I think Freddy mercury wild have been a glorious troll on Twitter in the vein of George takei

ongarite · 18-02-2016 08:56PM

DareGod wrote: »

That would describe me, yes. I don't actively look for music to listen to. I tend to go with what's in front of me. I suppose my point is that 10 or 15 years ago, what was in front of me had substance and heart, and now it doesn't at all.

Various studies have shown the average music listener will settle into their music taste in mid 30s and not actively discover new music.
Radio play music is not aimed at you, it's aiming at a smaller and smaller subset of pop listeners each year.

There has never been more access to discovery of new music if you are willing to make the effort to find it.
Or else you settle for what you know and is comfortable and think all new music is not for you, pure garbage, noise, etc...

Jimoslimos · 18-02-2016 09:05PM

Not sure if music is any better or worse these days but it does seem to be lacking in soul and originality.

Case in point, a fairly dire dance 'remix' of Tracy Chapman's Fast Car with forgettable generic female vocalist reached number two in the UK last week I think. I mean why bother keeping the original lyrics in there since they're obviously completely meaningless.

DareGod · 18-02-2016 09:05PM

ongarite wrote: »

Various studies have shown the average music listener will settle into their music taste in mid 30s and not actively discover new music.
Radio play music is not aimed at you, it's aiming at a smaller and smaller subset of pop listeners each year.

There has never been more access to discovery of new music if you are willing to make the effort to find it.
Or else you settle for what you know and is comfortable and think all new music is not for you, pure garbage, noise, etc...

Okay but is it just me or is what's on the radio these days much ****tier than it was 10/15 years ago?

In my opinion it is much ****tier now, and I blame social media.

Of course there's an underground scene always waiting to be discovered by you if you search for it. That has always been and will always be the case.

ongarite · 18-02-2016 09:11PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not sure if music is any better or worse these days but it does seem to be lacking in soul and originality.

Case in point, a fairly dire dance 'remix' of Tracy Chapman's Fast Car with forgettable generic female vocalist reached number two in the UK last week I think. I mean why bother keeping the original lyrics in there since they're obviously completely meaningless.

The volume of single sales has fallen drastically in the last 10 years so any song that catches the flame will shot up one week, burn out and disappear.
Single sales used to mean something when it was one of the only ways to hear music from your favourite artist without the expense of buying the album.
Remember when the BBC Top 40 charts came out every Sunday, it would be talked about who is no.1 or highest entry, etc.
Now it's meaningless; consumption of music in the digital age has made the Top 40 charts a relic.

Now you can go to Youtube, Vevo, Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music, etc...

Billy86 · 18-02-2016 10:02PM

Custardpi wrote: »

I'd classify that as cheerleading tbh. Again, while I certainly don't think he's terrible sound wise & reckon that at least some of the criticism which his music gets is probably due to his awful personality I'd also hold that by far his greatest talent is that of self promotion, which dwarfs his musical abilities, present though the latter may be.

Admitting that something is very good despite not being able to stand the person who made it is a very odd definition of cheerleading to be honest, but it is interesting to think if he publicity stunts or music keeps him in the media more.

Either way, Chance the Rapper is better in my opinion. Now that's someone I'd happily cheerlead about!

Billy86 · 18-02-2016 10:05PM

DareGod wrote: »

Why don't you blame social media, though? The explosion of social media into our lives has exactly coincided with the explosion of terrible music. Don't you think that the self-obsessed, memory-of-a-braindead-goldfish culture that social media has pushed on us is significantly to blame for people getting "stupider" ?

Mainstream music hit a low point in the late 90s/early 2000s I reckon, before social media came about.

riclad · 18-02-2016 10:31PM

People over 30-35 stop listening to new music,
does anyone care about the charts apart from radio dj,s ,
young people listen to music on youtube, streaming apps,
maybe some music channels smash hits,the box etc
ITS part of getting old,
new music sounds bad or meaningless .
There was awful music in the charts before facebook existed,
it does not take alot of sales to get into the top 20.
the charts take streaming, youtube views into account .
VINYL sales are going up.
Theres loads of great music out there ,
if you wanna look for it .
look at adele . she s a great singer,
her songs are not successful because of all the electronic sampling or production effects .

nyarlothothep · 19-02-2016 12:08AM

Adele, Kanye, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and the like are fcking terrible...Inoffensive, middle of the road, corporate crap. Music has hit a low point when Kanye is being called a genius, guess what? he's not! He's anything but a genius. There's a tonne of music on the internet true, but it's very hard to find anything that stands out amongst the noise and those bands/artists that are truly talented get drowned because of that signal to noise factor.

Custardpi · 19-02-2016 12:16AM

On the other hand Taylor Swift is really good at sending her fans nice messages on social media (or so countless articles on "news" websites inform me) so she's got the really important stuff covered.

Ice Maiden · 19-02-2016 12:22AM

NIMAN wrote: »

But my point is that not everyone likes The Beatles, The Jam or David Bowie. To some, that music is awful.

Oh for sure, but while you cannot deny individual preference, quality or lack thereof can be objective.
I mean when there is the good and the bad - the in between is subjective.
Someone might love that dance cover of Fast Car as mentioned, and they might hate I Am The Walrus - but that doesn't mean the dance version of Fast Car is objectively better than I Am The Walrus in terms of quality and creativity.

In reference to what someone said about people becoming more stupid - I don't know if that's true either. I think social media, as I said somewhere else, simply makes it much more visible.

Rothko · 19-02-2016 12:28AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Adele, Kanye, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and the like are fcking terrible...Inoffensive, middle of the road, corporate crap. Music has hit a low point when Kanye is being called a genius, guess what? he's not! He's anything but a genius. There's a tonne of music on the internet true, but it's very hard to find anything that stands out amongst the noise and those bands/artists that are truly talented get drowned because of that signal to noise factor.

Say what you will about Kanye but his music is hardly inoffensive.

nyarlothothep · 19-02-2016 12:30AM

Suas11 wrote: »

Say what you will about Kanye but his music is hardly inoffensive.

Yeah, you're right, it's offensive to my ears!:pac:

Ice Maiden · 19-02-2016 12:32AM

I quite like a lot of Kanye songs from a few years back - e.g. Love Lockdown, Flashing Lights, All Falls Down, Gold Digger and No Church In The Wild. Haven't heard much by him since, which is strange seeing as he's everywhere.

osarusan · 19-02-2016 12:34AM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

quality or lack thereof can be objective.

Really? Give me one reason that cannot be disputed as to why one song is objectively better than another, for example why I am the Walrus is objectively better than the dance version of Fast Car.

I mean, a reason that even the biggest fan of the Fast Car dance song would simply have to accept. One that they couldn't just dismiss with 'I don't think so' or 'I disagree.'

nyarlothothep · 19-02-2016 12:34AM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Oh for sure, but while you cannot deny individual preference, quality or lack thereof can be objective.
I mean when there is the good and the bad - the in between is subjective.
Someone might love that dance cover of Fast Car as mentioned, and they might hate I Am The Walrus - but that doesn't mean the dance version of Fast Car is objectively better than I Am The Walrus in terms of quality and creativity.

In reference to what someone said about people becoming more stupid - I don't know if that's true either. I think social media, as I said somewhere else, simply makes it much more visible.

I agree with this, I don't agree with the music is all relative/subjective argument taken to an absolute extreme. Case in point, I might not enjoy listening to say Johnny Cash, that's not my kind of music but I do respect the artistic integrity and value of the music, that is self evident. Ditto for The Clash, I'm not into them that much but I recognise that they're good. It's not all relative/subjective, there has to be quality there to begin with and I don't see it with 99% of modern music, and particularly with the current 'stars' we have today. This type of argument is essentially analogous to the one which goes: 'music has always been good, you're just getting old' which wilfully ignores the fact that cultures have boom and bust periods. In any case it's a bad time for rock and metal, yeah there are loads of bands on the internet but the really interesting ones are hard to find and many are just reinventing the wheel (which is to say they're only doing this and not reinventing it while adding a new interpretation).

Ice Maiden · 19-02-2016 12:41AM

osarusan wrote: »

Really? Give me one reason that cannot be disputed as to why one song is objectively better than another, for example why I am the Walrus is objectively better than the dance version of Fast Car.

I mean, a reason that even the biggest fan of the Fast Car dance song would simply have to accept. One that they couldn't just dismiss with 'I don't think so' or 'I disagree.'

Creativity, originality, songwriting ability, musicianship, labour even.

Heat magazine and Orwell novels are both reading materials, words on a page, but if a person prefers Heat magazine does the argument therefore follow that the good and bad in these cases are purely subjective?

I enjoy a read of a gossip magazine and a good pop song and a fluffy TV show on TLC myself by the way - this isn't a snobbery thing.

osarusan · 19-02-2016 12:55AM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Creativity, originality, songwriting ability, musicianship, labour even.
.

I would agree with you on all counts but the fan of the dance song might not.

If they say 'no way, the dance version is more creative', there is not much you can say to that.

I think that with art (novels, poetry, music, painting, etc) it is pretty much impossible to develop objective criteria that can be consistently applied.

I think The Pickwick Papers is one of the greatest pieces of art ever produced, but I have to accept the fact that somebody else might get just as much pleasure from a book that I think is a complete pile of junk.

The poster above mentioned that the talent of Johnny Cash is self-evident, but we also can be sure that there are people who will think Johnny Cash is rubbish. His talent is not evident to them at all.

How do you deal with that? Maybe, like me, you think they have absolutely no taste and idea what they are talking about, but that won't change anything.

Edit: I know it's not a snobbery thing.

Faith+1 · 19-02-2016 01:00AM

Not at all. My christian rock band has sold over 2 million copies....we've already gone double myrrh.

Custardpi · 19-02-2016 01:05AM

I think most intelligent people are able to recognise that someone is talented & skilled at their work even if they don't enjoy the particular output. For instance I'd tend to find much of Yes's output pretty tedious but would nevertheless be able to acknowledge the clear abilities of Rick Wakeman. That's just a personal preference really. However, when it comes to music that's merely churned out disposable pap - your X-factor type stuff, I think at that level anyone with a wider knowledge of what other music is out there & a functioning set of ears can say "that's trash" fairly justifiably. I don't believe that all pop music falls into that category of course.

Ice Maiden · 19-02-2016 01:13AM

osarusan wrote: »

I would agree with you on all counts but the fan of the dance song might not.

If they say 'no way, the dance version is more creative', there is not much you can say to that.

I think that with art (novels, poetry, music, painting, etc) it is pretty much impossible to develop objective criteria that can be consistently applied.

I think The Pickwick Papers is one of the greatest pieces of art ever produced, but I have to accept the fact that somebody else might get just as much pleasure from a book that I think is a complete pile of junk.

The poster above mentioned that the talent of Johnny Cash is self-evident, but we also can be sure that there are people who will think Johnny Cash is rubbish. His talent is not evident to them at all.

How do you deal with that? Maybe, like me, you think they have absolutely no taste and idea what they are talking about, but that won't change anything.

Edit: I know it's not a snobbery thing.

But I'm not disputing people can think The Pickwick Papers is utter junk - and I'm down with that, it's just individual taste. It is their completely valid opinion.
However I don't think personal taste is always sufficient criteria to negate that inherent quality can be objective, when you examine the talent and hard work that has gone into something.

osarusan · 19-02-2016 01:24AM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

However I don't think personal taste is always sufficient criteria to negate that inherent quality can be objective, when you examine the talent and hard work that has gone into something.

Talent itself is completely subjective, and who is to say that somebody didn't work incredibly hard to produce their piece of crap song, book, or poem.

Again, you mention 'inherent' quality, but there will always be people who disagree with that. It's inherent, but only for some people?

I am not picking on you here and hope it doesn't come across that way. This topic comes up on boards every so often and I have never seen an indisputable case made for objective measurement of quality.

I have tried many times myself, and it often ends up in a plaintive 'can't you see that X is better than Y? I mean, just listen to it!!!'

Custardpi · 19-02-2016 01:32AM

There's surely a limit to how far you can push the "talent is subjective" argument though. For instance if I, who can just about strum C, G & Dm on the guitar claim to be as talented as Slash on the instrument is that a perfectly valid opinion which I'm entitled to or at that point can someone say that objectively I'm talking sh1te?

Ice Maiden · 19-02-2016 01:37AM

"I am not picking on you here and hope it doesn't come across that way" - nah you're grand Osarusan, it doesn't come across that way at all! I'ma agree to disagree.

Lights On · 19-02-2016 01:45AM

Custardpi wrote: »

There's surely a limit to how far you can push the "talent is subjective" argument though. For instance if I, who can just about strum C, G & Dm on the guitar claim to be as talented as Slash on the instrument is that a perfectly valid opinion which I'm entitled to or at that point can someone say that objectively I'm talking sh1te?

It doesn't always matter when it comes to music though I think, Daniel Johnston being a perfect example if we are taking about the guitar. This song to me is better than anything Slash has ever done, is he as talented as him on the guitar? Not even close, but to my ears this is head and shoulders above any song Slash could make.

osarusan · 19-02-2016 01:49AM

Custardpi wrote: »

There's surely a limit to how far you can push the "talent is subjective" argument though. For instance if I, who can just about strum C, G & Dm on the guitar claim to be as talented as Slash on the instrument is that a perfectly valid opinion which I'm entitled to or at that point can someone say that objectively I'm talking sh1te?

I was imagining that the discussion and comparisons were limited to actual musicians alright.

If we talk about somebody who is literally unable to even play the imstrument, then I don't think my comments are relevant.

Still, I wonder if you could come up with a set of criteria that would objectively differentiate you from Slash which would also objectively differentiate other professional rock guitarists from Slash?

We might be talking at cross purposes, but that's what 'objective' means to me - determination or comparison on criteria which cannot be disputed even by the most ardent fan of the artists in question.

19-02-2016 11:29AM

Lights On wrote: »

People still buy music, Adele selling 15 million albums in less than 6 months is the most extreme example of that. Sure sales have dropped off, streaming is the biggest reason for that imo, not that people don't want to pay, it's just that they'd rather use a Netflix type model where they pay a fee to get all they want.

But the rise in vinyl sales shows people moving back to records, though how long it will last is anybody's guess, so it's still being paid for. Just not every album is going platinum nowadays, which is a good thing really because if you take a look at some of the albums that were selling a million plus copies back in the day, a lot of them were utter garbage(and a lot doing it today still are!)

Not really a fair comparison either to be honest. Why not have a picture of Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens & FKA twigs at the bottom?

People definitely consume music differently nowadays...

I have never used Spotify, or any of them streaming things other than Google Play Music... ( simply as it has my own collection on it)

In the time since I've had turntables, vinyl has died and risen 3 times, this is the third coming we are in now IMO....

I still buy vinyl, never really stopped - but I would say that doing a weekly radio show...

I have over 3 - 4K of them at this stage, that's after the clear out...

andekwarhola · 19-02-2016 11:30AM

DareGod wrote: »

I miss the days when artists used to create an album, promote the music, tour it, and the music had to be good. Fans would buy the record and it would touch them, it would speak to their soul, it hit a nerve with them and they truly appreciated the art of it.

If a post could have an annoying beard, this would be it.

BuilderPlumber · 05-03-2016 08:08AM

Social media has brought both good and bad things to the music industry. What was said above about missing the days when the music had to be good and promoted, is true.

It is true that the official media in general and thus the social media controlled by the official media has in Ireland at least, been forcing certain styles of music on us and ignoring other styles of music. Everywhere you turn in Ireland, you see the official media ranging from local rural radio to RTE's Tubridy show on Fridays promoting awful country pop music or boybands and little else. It seems the official media has become a closed shop of cronies and/or can be bought by unscrupulous promoters with often dodgy money.

This online social media promotion of poor music in Ireland, most always bad modern country music (boyfolk music), boybands or winners of reality talent competitions, is an extension of the official media's preferred promoted styles and it is instigated by the social media accounts of radio stations, TV stations, TV presenters and radio presenters.

I am sick to death of seeing all this attention given to very poor music that all sounds the same. Boyfolk country pop, boybands, reality TV competition contestants? This is ALL the official media are obsessed with and will promote any way they can. It is time this stopped and other styles get equal treatment.

Social media in the hands of independent singers and bands though can give us the alternative that the official media does not give us. Spotify, Emusic, CDBaby, and other online sites can be easily promoted via Facebook, etc. You can discover all the great music old and new the official media won't feature. Youtube though can be a true curse for music: stuff can be uploaded for free and little can be done to stop it.

TerrorFirmer · 05-03-2016 11:45AM

The Hunky Monster wrote: »

D'ya know who's insufferable?

Beyoncé. That's who. And that mega gowl Kanye West. And Lady Gaga...and Pink... I'm no hipster but 90% of pop music is actually terrible. I don't blame social media, it's just people are getting stupider...we have a generation of people growing up idolising the kardashians and those spaz faced ultra cùnts on Geordie shore and the like. The world is getting stupider and they have to be spoon fed their music that could honestly be composed by a three year old and sung better than your transition year choir teacher.

Pretty much the classic 'I'm not a racist, but...' line. What has Lady Gaga got to do with the Kardashians? What has Beyonce got to do with Geordie Shore?

You don't like pop music, and that's completely fine - but to lump everybody who doesn't share your opinion in a ridiculously narrowly defined field is ignorance in the highest.

It goes on in every forum. Games, Film, Music, TV - 'people are getting stupider, they don't make them liked they used to, it's all rubbish these days'.

It's funny that they can't actually see themselves how they're repeating the same tired line that is trotted out every couple of years. And they always think that they somehow 'know better' than most people (commonly referred to as sheep, stupid, etc) what's objectively good and bad.

It's easy to look back on past decades with rose tinted glasses but there was endless oceans of absolute muck peddled in every decade in every media aspect possible, but they are conveniently lost in time and only the tip of the iceberg is put forward as the reasoning for why X decade or year was better.

You and your post are actually total stereotypes.

Has social media destroyed music?

Comments