Is newer music worse? Today it seems like this is one of the most common questions that arises when the latest hit album is released. Music is perhaps the single most universal art form that exists in our world, and everybody’s taste in it is so diverse that it seems almost impossible to have productive conversations about it. In music, more so than any other genre of art, we can’t seem to find common ground on what is high-quality and what should be left behind. Another interesting trend I’ve noticed is the perception that older music is inherently “better” than current releases.
This is the center of an issue that people have with the discovery of music. Research indicates that adult music preferences begin to form as early as 13 or 14 years old. This makes a lot of sense, as back in my teens, I was enthralled by Imagine Dragons’ first and second studio albums, “Night Visions” and “Smoke and Mirrors.” To this day, “Smoke and Mirrors” is still my favorite album of all time and occupies a large monopoly over my top 10 songs. Although, to further prove this study right, I am not a very big fan of Imagine Dragons’ newer music. I still have a lot of attachment to the style of songwriting that I discovered as a teen, and listening to their newer sounds just doesn’t hit the same highs for me.
But the thing that I, and everyone else, have to acknowledge is that these older songs are not objectively better. Our own biases significantly shape what we think and how we judge music that differs from our preferences. When we pit new songs against our favorites, or against widely renowned “classics,” these songs regularly fail to stack up because we haven’t given them the time or dedication to understand them as deeply as we do the things we love.
Why does a “classic” song, like “Don’t Stop Believin’” by Journey, earn that title? I personally would point to the song’s instantly recognizable melody, exceptional vocals and perhaps most importantly, the fact that it has existed in the mainstream for almost half a century — a testament to its ability to remain relevant over time. As phenomenal a song as this is, I find that its qualities mirror the same things that people critique about modern music. It is a song with an insanely catchy melody, and one that is quite repetitive. I will be the first to admit that I often critique music for overly poppy, catchy tunes, because I find that these songs become annoying or overly repetitive with continued listens, until finally they become sickening to hear.
So is time the only thing separating the hall-of-famers from the modern “slop?” No, I don’t think so. I think another reason we perceive music as worse is our ability to engage with so much of it these days. In the modern day, there are all sorts of programs, services and layers of industry that make it so a single person, regardless of experience or training, can emulate the sounds of an entire band. There is just so much more music these days, and it is accessible as ever, with services like Spotify granting a nearly unlimited library of music for a monthly subscription fee.
Today, we can move on from a song with the click of a button. With endless songs to listen to, people spend much less time with each track, and build their opinions through surface-level analysis. This happens because, quite frankly, it’s just so easy to move to the next thing if something doesn’t immediately grab your attention.
In recent years, I have broadened my horizons much more. Black Pumas’ psychedelic soul music, Laufey’s perfect fusion of the jazz, pop and classical genres and Hozier’s poetic and vocal prowess define my music taste these days, but I did not get to this point quickly. I spend a lot of time with each track in a given album, and I am always delighted to discover a new background vocal or chord progression I didn’t hear before. The problem with new music is not that it is worse than what came before, but that people don’t give it the attention it deserves.
