Is it me or does modern music suck?

Because going back to the 60’s,70’s,and 80’s there was good music like the Rolling Stones,The Beatles,Buffalo Springfield,Iron Maiden,Led Zeppelin and such.

Compared to modern music which seems to be mostly about image over whether they can play. I’ll take Stairway to Heaven over Lady Gaga any day.

I agree though on my timeline the peak of the quality of music was around the 1890s. Though I would certainly take classic rock over ‘tin pan alley.’

Lady Gaga is indeed a new low for American popular culture. Kesha and Katy Pery too. What a musical trifecta from h*ll.

No, I don’t believe its true. I think there was just as much bad music in every generation as there is now.

Dude,i mean the 1960’s,70’s,80’s.

No. It’s not just you.

Yes. It does.

I’m a Rush fan myself. People cite Lady Gaga’s “training” as some evidence her music isn’t garbage. Sorry, but I’ll put Geddy up against Gaga any day. He’d definitely school her.

Remember my dad paraphrasing something to that effect back in the 60’s:p

The "popular" music does. :sad_yes: But there's a lot of music out there that is modern and actually good, it's just not played on the big radio stations every day and heard by millions.

When it comes to music obviously there is a lot of subjectivity to it, sort of like with food. Yes, there are some things that would gag anyone with taste buds, but to a great extent it's a matter of what you have developed a taste for through continued exposure. There will always be people, especially older people, who find the music the kids are listening to now terrible, because their "taste" in music has been formed through exposure to something different.

I think much modern music is good for what it is, the question is whether what it is is good. A lot of the most popular modern (as in, the last five years or so) music is essentially dance music and is meant to get you excited. To the extent that it succeeds in doing so for the target audience it is good at what it is designed for, and it no doubt takes a kind of skill to accomplish that, and especially to accomplish it in such a way that anyone would also want to buy the song and listen to it outside the club and while sober.

Plato, I seem to recall, condemned certain forms of music whose purpose was emotional excitement rather than beauty, and also condemned novelty in music. I think it's a safe bet he would not have been a Gaga fan. We Christians take a more incarnational view of life and have a more balanced view of emotion and all the more arational aspects of human nature, though in general we agree with Plato that our lower faculties should be subject to our higher ones as much as possible, with reason as the highest faculty of our souls. But authentic reason itself reveals that a Vulcan-style impassivity (while suppressed emotions rage beneath the surface) is not the way for human beings to live.

For us Christians all things are lawful, but not everything is helpful. Listening to a certain kind of music isn't intrinsically evil, so far as I can tell. But will it help us grow as a person in the way God is calling us to grow? Or will it help us serve God and our neighbors? If not, maybe we shouldn't be listening to it at all.

[quote="Irish_Girl_68, post:5, topic:253430"]
No. It's not just you.

Yes. It does.

I'm a Rush fan myself. People cite Lady Gaga's "training" as some evidence her music isn't garbage. Sorry, but I'll put Geddy up against Gaga any day. He'd definitely school her.

[/quote]

Lady Gaga has musical training? Who did she study with, Elmo?

[quote="Fluffyfox, post:1, topic:253430"]
Because going back to the 60's,70's,and 80's there was good music like the Rolling Stones,The Beatles,Buffalo Springfield,Iron Maiden,Led Zeppelin and such.

Compared to modern music which seems to be mostly about image over whether they can play. I'll take Stairway to Heaven over Lady Gaga any day.

[/quote]

your absolutely right

[quote="PatriceA, post:3, topic:253430"]
No, I don't believe its true. I think there was just as much bad music in every generation as there is now.

[/quote]

This.

There's trash and treasure in every genre of music at every time. It also changes greatly based on personal tastes. Don't be so quick to judge! ;)

Yes, it does.

I'd say that anything past '99 is generally trash.. With a few exceptions.

I like classic rock alot.. Aerosmith.. Led Zeppelin.... AC/DC.... And of course, the Beatles

Now that is some good music.

It's a shame I wasnt born in time to hear that music when it was new and very popular.

You forgot all the not good stuff from the 60s, 70s and 80s.

There is good stuff from now, there’s some good techno for example and of course Nox Arcana is simply sublime (listen to it, A Winter’s Knight is beautiful)

It depends on which genre of ‘modern’ you’re listening to. I admit that many classic bands are excellent (the first concert I went to was ZZ Top), but it probably isn’t fair to compare Classic Rock to modern Pop or Rap, since they’re completely different genres. It would be better to see how Rock itself has evolved over the years.
Some of the newer Rock music is pretty good in my opinion (of course, since it’s my generation’s music, I’m a bit biased).

Why do we have to separate music into genres? What if I make some music and I don’t want someone putting a label on it?

Musical genre is important since it gives some idea of the form of the music. Rock, Blues, Jazz, even Pop all have different note or chord progressions that serve to define the music, and some musical genres are determined by how the music is performed, or in some cases how it is produced. Its kind of how written works are classified as Nonfiction, Sci-Fi, Horror, Fantasy, etc. When you pick up a book labeled as such, you have a general idea of what to expect. Same thing goes with music.
Of course, you don’t have to label your music, or you could even create your own genre - people are constantly doing that. But most music follows certain rules that automatically classifies it as a certain genre - there’s really no escaping it.

Honestly, I think the only thing you need to do in order to identify what kind of music it is would be to say who it was composed by. Other than that there are only two types of music. Classical and Romantic. There is nothing else.

Uh. No.

Let’s take just what genre people call “Classical” music. Within that there are several genres, typically broken into time periods -

Classic, romantic, atonal, chant…I could go on here but you get the idea.

From there, a further breakdown takes place:

motets, antiphons, symphonies, pastorals, arias, choruses…you get the idea.

To put your statement into terms of, say, food it goes like this:

“Honestly, I think the only thing you need to do in order to identify what kind of food it is would be to say who it was cooked by. Other than that there are only two types of food. Burgers and Pizza. There is nothing else.”

It. Just. Doesn’t. Work.

I'd agree with jabs against Lady Gaga. She can sing sure but her music is... just not to my tune.

I'd also admit that I haven't been hearing a lot of preferable music from the mainstream lately. I've seen some that I found likeable at best but not enough to land in my PSP's mp3 player.

Some people like it though and I guess I can't blame them.
It'd help if they stop going gaga over the artists (no subtle pun intended).

[quote="Whitacre_Girl, post:18, topic:253430"]
"Honestly, I think the only thing you need to do in order to identify what kind of food it is would be to say who it was cooked by. Other than that there are only two types of food. Burgers and Pizza. There is nothing else."

It. Just. Doesn't. Work.

[/quote]

Indeed. Folks who make such statements only reveal how desperate they need to be schooled in common sense.

The only form of Classical music that can be called anything different than just Classical is the African American spiritual. Everything else is Romantic. Atonal, rock and roll, blues, jazz, rap, r and b, heavy metal, techno. Romantic music is like the Protestant reformation of music. It just splinters and splinters and splinters. There really aren’t that many Classical composers. The ones I can think of are Handel, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Dvorak. I’m sure there are others but I don’t know who they are. Classical music is founded on Plato’s definition of aesthetics. All other “music”, which is Romantic, is based off of Aristotle’s definition of aesthetics. Plato says that beauty is based on immortal principles or ideas. Aristotle says that beauty is based on ones own feelings or tastes. Depending on the philosophy of the composer, one is either composing Platonic music, or Aristotelian music. Either Classical or Romantic. That’s it. If you can think of any other kind of music and describe what is the basis for its compositional method then let me know.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.