#392: Old Music Has Taken Over
.........................
This article was written in 2022 and held back from being published.
.........................
Way back in 2019 I posted "What Corrupted Popular Music", in which I count down the top ten factors.
Today, I read Ted Gioia's article "Is Old Music Killing New Music", in the Atlantic. Gioia makes the case that 'old music' now makes up 70% of the US market, and that percentage is growing. Of course that data point counts anything beyond 18 months as 'old'. Still, 70% and growing is a very large figure.
And, as Gioia points out: "The current list of most-downloaded tracks on iTunes is filled with the names of bands from the previous century, such as Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Police."
I enjoyed reading the entire case, but what can be done about it?
What's probably happened is something like what happened to classical music: the centuries have separated the wheat from the chaff, and anything new that aims to be "a classic" has to be very good to compete.
But what if this distillation process, by which classics are canonized, could be replicated using millions of ears and a social media app? What if artists and their new music could cut out the middlemen and be recognized as great a few days after being released? Of course this happens to a certain extent. There are websites that allow listeners to taste and buy new music.
What I'm suggesting, though, constitutes a step beyond. What happens in the normal course of events is that great art emerges when those whose opinion is most respected agree that the art in question is outstanding--the larger the number endorsing, the more emphatic the decision. So, to compress this process from centuries to days would require that those listening to new music, themselves, be ranked by the respect they generate in expressing their opinions.
There are many ways this could be done; I can think of a few:
* Celebrities could be hired to feed their favorite new music to listeners, who further refine.
* Established music critics could be hired to pick new material.
* Established musicians could provide that same service.
* Listeners receive points when participating. They listen to new songs, then assign those points to the songs they think are winners. If they've picked winners, their points multiply. Or, if not, points are lost. The earlier the pick, the more the points.
Perhaps different feeds within a single website would indicate at which level a song is intended (say "pop" or"classic", with curators describing their categorical niche). As with something like Substack, one subscription fee would be split between artists, curators, and the site (unlike Substack, the most respected participants could also be rewarded). Plus, there could be a few 'free' options involving artists more interested in the recognition ("We'll make money once we're famous.") Curators could add atmosphere and commentary in the hopes of bringing in paying listeners, perhaps revealing a weekly top-20 countdown, and 'best new song' award. Just as important, each feed could have a weekly top-100 'most respected' listeners list.
Would the site eventually become an objective generator of musical excellence? Or would the tendency be to reward the lowest common denominator? It may be that the way to avoid "they'll love this", instead of "I love this" is to channel all new participants through the free feeds, where there's no danger of coming up empty-handed after paying for a subscription. These free feeds then channel the most highly rated new music to the subscriber feeds where the most respected listeners are rewarded. Eventually, this filter would likely promote excellence, especially if it's explained so that beginners focus on what they like.
Unless, of course, the real problem is the decline in musical taste due to lack of exposure and other depressors. Which would lead us back to my article: "What Corrupted Popular Music".
No comments:
Post a Comment