#41 ·
I think it’s vital to point out that when we talk about music as a universal language for everyone, the complexity of the composition doesn't actually matter—what matters is whether the music is good.
Anyone can mess around with software on a laptop, just like anyone can "specialized" their way through a cello, but that doesn't change the fact that a kid behind a computer screen might be a much better songwriter than a cellist, regardless of the fact that mastering the cello is objectively harder.
How was the melody for Amazing Grace born? Honestly, I have no clue, but I know someone probably had it stuck in their head a hundred years ago—someone who might not have even known how to read a single note—and they sang it while working the fields, and then others heard it and passed it along.
That song was likely created without any grueling technical struggle, yet to this day, it remains one of the most precious musical and cultural gems in history.
Laypeople—and even musicians who judge music based on how complicated it was to write, perform, or produce—are people who simply cannot grasp what music actually is.
Music isn't math, no matter how many people I know who act like it is. Music is so much more than that! Whether a track holds up depends entirely on the talent, the ear, and the sensibility of the creator, whether they are using a violin, a wooden plank, a crappy 80s synth, or a computer program.
That’s why music critics are so limited; they aren't talented, nor do they have the emotional depth to truly feel music. They just have specific styles they prefer or dislike.
Approaching music with prejudices—whether by identifying with it or not, or judging it based on the persona or image of the person who made it—makes you an incompetent and ungrateful listener right from the jump, let alone a music critic.
Music itself won't die, but it has lost value because commercialism is being churned out on a massive scale. What becomes a hit and what doesn't is decided by a mass of teenagers whose goal isn't to hear a quality song, but to identify with the performer's image—whether they're playing at being a tough guy, a satanist, or a ghetto gangster—just to boost their own egos and melt into the crowd they want to belong to.
But that isn't really music; that falls under sociology, psychology, and the development of a person who probably lacks talent, taste, or an ear for music but "knows what they like."
And that is exactly why music is failing in certain segments—because in too many cases, it is just plain bad—though I don't believe music will ever truly perish.
Commercial trends fluctuate, and when shitty music finally bores people to death, things will turn around for the better. Things are already looking better than they were in the 90s, when we were hit by that wave of rave culture and uninspired techno, which was basically synonymous with brainwashed teenagers zoning out to repetitive beats in dark, laser-lit basement clubs. Not to mention the dance music that mostly relied on covers of 70s and 80s pop classics. Those were the first signs that something was wrong, because suddenly nobody could write a decent song anymore since all the doors had opened to cater to the most aggressive and easily influenced listeners—kids. Untalented, plain-looking girls and pretty boys were essentially sponsoring themselves in music videos that looked like commercials, with the songs serving merely as background noise for them.
A huge part of the blame lies with MTV, which in the 90s was the ultimate brainwashing tool for pumping garbage into the minds of kids. As MTV began to decline and shift its programming focus, music started to improve again.
MTV nearly destroyed music because it wasn't selling sound; it was selling image, posing, superficial beauty, and pure vacuity. The saddest part is that millions of people fell for it.
Unfortunately, that's still how it works in many cases today.
Anyone can mess around with software on a laptop, just like anyone can "specialized" their way through a cello, but that doesn't change the fact that a kid behind a computer screen might be a much better songwriter than a cellist, regardless of the fact that mastering the cello is objectively harder.
How was the melody for Amazing Grace born? Honestly, I have no clue, but I know someone probably had it stuck in their head a hundred years ago—someone who might not have even known how to read a single note—and they sang it while working the fields, and then others heard it and passed it along.
That song was likely created without any grueling technical struggle, yet to this day, it remains one of the most precious musical and cultural gems in history.
Laypeople—and even musicians who judge music based on how complicated it was to write, perform, or produce—are people who simply cannot grasp what music actually is.
Music isn't math, no matter how many people I know who act like it is. Music is so much more than that! Whether a track holds up depends entirely on the talent, the ear, and the sensibility of the creator, whether they are using a violin, a wooden plank, a crappy 80s synth, or a computer program.
That’s why music critics are so limited; they aren't talented, nor do they have the emotional depth to truly feel music. They just have specific styles they prefer or dislike.
Approaching music with prejudices—whether by identifying with it or not, or judging it based on the persona or image of the person who made it—makes you an incompetent and ungrateful listener right from the jump, let alone a music critic.
Music itself won't die, but it has lost value because commercialism is being churned out on a massive scale. What becomes a hit and what doesn't is decided by a mass of teenagers whose goal isn't to hear a quality song, but to identify with the performer's image—whether they're playing at being a tough guy, a satanist, or a ghetto gangster—just to boost their own egos and melt into the crowd they want to belong to.
But that isn't really music; that falls under sociology, psychology, and the development of a person who probably lacks talent, taste, or an ear for music but "knows what they like."
And that is exactly why music is failing in certain segments—because in too many cases, it is just plain bad—though I don't believe music will ever truly perish.
Commercial trends fluctuate, and when shitty music finally bores people to death, things will turn around for the better. Things are already looking better than they were in the 90s, when we were hit by that wave of rave culture and uninspired techno, which was basically synonymous with brainwashed teenagers zoning out to repetitive beats in dark, laser-lit basement clubs. Not to mention the dance music that mostly relied on covers of 70s and 80s pop classics. Those were the first signs that something was wrong, because suddenly nobody could write a decent song anymore since all the doors had opened to cater to the most aggressive and easily influenced listeners—kids. Untalented, plain-looking girls and pretty boys were essentially sponsoring themselves in music videos that looked like commercials, with the songs serving merely as background noise for them.
A huge part of the blame lies with MTV, which in the 90s was the ultimate brainwashing tool for pumping garbage into the minds of kids. As MTV began to decline and shift its programming focus, music started to improve again.
MTV nearly destroyed music because it wasn't selling sound; it was selling image, posing, superficial beauty, and pure vacuity. The saddest part is that millions of people fell for it.
Unfortunately, that's still how it works in many cases today.
