No, music is in a rut. I listen to plenty of new (or new to me) stuff via services like Pandora and Rhapsody. Most genres have gone completely stale. Hip hop is pretty much retreading the exact same territory once again. Rock's become largely cliche, with most of the good material being put out by bands that have been popular since I was in middle school. It's just a down cycle. It happens.

Recorded sales and concert attendance, as well as just turning on your radio, seem to indicate this. 2008's concert attendance was slightly down, and the top 10 acts were all ancient. In order Bon Jovi, Springsteen, Madonna, The Police, Celine Dion, Kenny Chesney, Neil Diamond, Spice Girls, Eagles, and Rascall Flats. With one exception they're either country (which has been in a rut for 30 years) or older than me.

That's a genuine rut my friend. The wheels are spinning but nobody's going anywhere.

It might be more accurate to describe it as a rut for you. I don't mean that as an insult, it's okay if you just don't like what you hear.

If you're looking for "the cool new things" that are happening, I definitely wouldn't look at the Top 10 in concert attendance.

Given, we're not going to invent distorted electric guitar or precision audio editing again. But really, do we define great music as having a "sound" that's obviously jarring? Great music has been produced for centuries with the same old orchestral instruments--to the uninitiated, it all sounds pretty much the same.

Given record sales and concert attendance, it would be more accurate to say that music isn't in a rut for you.

Since we're talking about a subjective judgment, sure.

We're in the midst of a major revolution in music distribution. While revenues are down, people are listening to more music than ever before, and getting more choice in what they can listen to. Thanks to a new generation raised on guitar hero and rock band, I predict that things are going to get even crazier very soon.

If you define a rut as "not undergoing mainstream stylistic revolution" then sure, we're in a rut.

You really aren't listening to the right hip hop artists, then. There are a myriad of highly talented rappers who's songs are rooted in meaningful, thought provoking subjects. And the same goes for any genre.

Musicians themselves are exploring various niches and the audiences that await them in every corner of the music world. And as a result, have a smaller fanbase. The reason why you still hear the same garbage on KROQ and why the top 10 acts are ancient is because those are the musicians that have been proven to appeal to the widest audience. And with the top 10 acts, I'm going to guess that a big part of their fanbase is composed of 30+ year old individuals who are going to stick around for a while with their static tastes in music. Basing the state of the music world on who the top 10 performing acts are is a bit foolish. There's a whole lot happening.

My iTunes library is filled with music of recent artists who's music is of high quality. You can't just turn on the radio now to find good music, even via Pandora or Rhapsody. Don't fool yourself by thinking that Pandora is really giving you an in depth look to the various genres of music. It really isn't. You have to work a bit harder than that.

Wouldn't you say that the fact that you have to work harder, even with amazing sources like Rhapsody and Pandora (which have a cornucopia of indie music) to find good music means we're in a rut? In the '90s you could just put on the radio.

I couldn't think of a better way to define one.

If anything, that's a reflection of the shift in popular musical taste. Kids these days are, in my opinion, much less mature than those that grew up a decade ago. And it's their taste that pretty much dictates what we hear on the radio.

But as far as music production, I think we've definitely seen a boom in music exploration and creativity. Again, a lot of musicians are finding niche audiences -- audiences too small and insignificant to record labels who are looking for the next Fallout Boy.

I'd agree with you in saying that the music business is in a rut, because its goal of marketing the next hit artist for huge returns leaves a lot of talent unnoticed. But is music, as far as its creativity, originality, progression, and meaning, in a rut? I really don't think so.

A decade ago with Blink 182 and Brittany Spears? Or 10 years before that, with Mr. Roboto?

Most people will always remain largely tasteless. That's nothing new. Popular music will always be worse than the real cutting edge, because pop music hit its peak and now it's in recline. The Beatles were that fusion of cutting edge and pop, and now that they're done music is changing again.

I agree with you about the rest, though.

There wasn't anything good on the radio in the 90s unless you were a fan of acts like Hootie and the Blowfish.

> the fact that you have to work harder, even with amazing sources like Rhapsody and Pandora (which have a cornucopia of indie music) to find good music means we're in a rut? In the '90s you could just put on the radio.

That's my experience too. In the 90's, lots and lots of really good music was selling really well too. You could just turn on MTV (or the radio), and you'd end up hearing it.

I haven't been following new music for many years, because somewhere along the way all that changed. The last time I happened to hear the stuff playing on a popular radio station, I was taken aback by what passes for a hit these days.

But I'm practically a grumpy old grandpa now. I bet people who grew up in the 70's bemoaned the lack of good music in the 80's or 90's too.

Nowadays I doubt you could turn on MTV and hear any music, let alone good.

True!

That is so sad. Pandora? Rhapsody? Radio? Really? You won't find (much) art there or in any of the bands that are playing amphitheaters. Find the bands who are living out of their van. Find the frontman who is so mentally ill he can barely function. Find the group of kids from Cardif who can ROCK a glockenspiel. Find the girl from so cal who uses cassette tapes live to build ambient loops while singing about her dead baby.

Both Pandora and Rhapsody have tremendous variety and aren't limited to major label music at all.

But still, just because there are a few schizophrenic glockenspielers out there doesn't mean the industry as a whole is doing well. As I pointed out originally, just like with the economy, the presence of some good stuff doesn't mean that the overall direction is a good one.

Both of those use algorithms to find similar music to what you like, no?

I put up a list of bands from the past two years doing new things. I don't see how you can say a band like The Arcade Fire is retreading old ground: they're creating something genuinely new. There are plenty of refreshing bands doing new stuff. Fleet Foxes is named a lot to the point of monotony, but the publicity surrounding them doesn't change the fact that they are genuinely new and good.

This seems to usually happen when people keep staring at the same place and expecting something interesting to happen there.

Historically, if you want to get a good idea of where music is going, see what black americans are producing. Virtually every new genre of western pop music in the last century has come from black americans. (Blues, jazz, soul, rock, funk, disco, house, techno, hip-hop)

After new genres emerge then there's usually a couple decades that follow of infusing that with other genres and that's where some really creative stuff starts coming out of the woodwork.

That's not a fair method. Rock began with Elvis. Before then, it was blues. Yeah, Elvis was inspired by black Americans, but his music was all his own.

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones, who both moved music forward, were both white.

The indie music scene nowadays comes from Jeff Magnum of Neutral Milk Hotel. He's white.

Techno was inspired by minimalist classical music. Steve Reich? Philip Glass? White.

I agree with your first point: music changes. I disagree with your last point: genres are interesting from the start. They become interesting for fans of other genres after a few decades, but for people who comprehend the musical theory behind a genre it tends to become interesting from the beginning.

I didn't say white people haven't innovated in music. I said that virtually all new pop genres have come from black americans.

Techno was influenced by 20th century minimalism, but it wasn't inspired by it. Minimalism started becoming a significant influence in the second wave of techno.

From your later comment, punk and some other rock sub-genres are good examples of genres that have not stemmed directly from black american culture.

Note -- I don't think this is something fundamentally having to do with race, but that there's something within black american culture that has driven a disproportionate amount of innovation in popular music.

With the genre-mixing thing, I didn't mean that genres aren't interesting from the start, just that often the phase where they begin to cross-pollinate often produces results that are as if not more interesting than the advent of the genres themselves.

> I said that virtually all new pop genres have come from black americans.

What counts as a "new pop genre" and what definition of "virtually all" are we using?

Country/Western, Broadway, pre-rock pop vs Jazz, R&B/Soul, Gospel, Rap, Hip-hop

"Pop genre" is mostly things that would get their own section at the record store.

Country / western and pre-pop jazz aren't new, but they're definitely pop. Pop became jazz and country came around about 90 years ago. Broadway's even older. The rest on your list I think non-controversially have African American roots.

Probably a reasonable definition of "new" is everything post-widespread-phonograph since genres started working different culturally once the primary way of listening to music shifted from live to recorded.

> Country / western and pre-pop jazz aren't new

And neither are R&B, Soul, or Gospel.

> The rest on your list I think non-controversially have African American roots.

There are two lists, separated by "vs".

I'm responding to a claim that almost all American pop genres came from AA roots. I disputed that claim by providing two lists, the first for "not AA" vs the second for "AA". The number of elements in the first is comparable to the number of elements in the second.

It's because society is predominantly white. We see anything coming from the outside as cutting edge because we stick to our own slim category.

I was this close to downmodding you for saying Elvis invented rock. Chuck Berry, dude.

...They're both 1955. Neither knew the other when they began. They're completely, utterly different in style. Elvis's Sun sessions invented the basis of what I'd consider rock.

Berry is riff-based. He's all about the guitar. He did incredible stuff, but for me rock was about the advent of the larger-than-life music personality, and about the attitude. Elvis had attitude. Berry didn't, not in the same way. Elvis was the first rock heartthrob.

My point was that it's not a race game. White people do music too. To add to my above list: punk was Sex Pistols and the Ramones.

I'll concede those points.

If you really want to see where music is going, you should just pay attention to what white people are buying.

The new Animal Collective album, Merriweather Post Pavilion, would be a good place to start.