(Unpopular?) Opinion: There is no decline in music quality, but more "bad" music is rising to the top

This article was inspired by multiple people in my social media circle expressing this idea, and in particular, an article that's been making the rounds for a little while:

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/tragic-decline-music-literacy-and-quality

To be clear, I don't mean to attack the author of the article, and in some ways I actually agree with him. It just so happens that this article addresses several of the elements around the idea of a decline in modern music that I see differently. I don't think the idea of a decline in music quality is a new one. In fact, I think some version of "new music sucks" gets expressed by every generation as they come of age. However, there are a few points made in the linked article that I take issue with, and I think the basis of the idea itself is flawed. I'm going to tell you why here.

I will admit that on some level, I'm kind of splitting hairs on the main point, because I will admit that (as stated in the title) it seems to me that more "bad" music has become popular over time. I think most "pop music" has been basically crap for a very long time. In terms of originality and depth, I don't personally see that much difference between, say, the boy-bands of today and the bubblegum pop of the 60's. I do think the author is right about pop music being "designed to sell, not inspire", but I don't think that's anything new. However, I do think that more actual talent used to find acceptance among the mainstream, and even become truly popular. The obvious example is The Beatles, though one could argue that their early stuff that really made them so popular was pretty bubblegum-ish. One thing that article mentions specifically is "lyrical intelligence", and is something like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" really any better by the metrics the author of the article lays out than any given pop song today? Granted, even at the time of that song, The Beatles were writing some songs with a bit more depth, but I think it would be fair to say that those weren't the songs that made them so popular, especially at first. That point aside though, I do think there was more adventurous music in the charts back then, though I'm going on recorded data that far back. Even during my own lifetime though, I seem to recall hearing more "good" music on the radio, for example. Again, I guess I'm splitting hairs a bit here, because I kind of agree with the author in that the commercialization of music has gotten worse, I just don't think I agree on the solution. I think his stated goal of improving our education system, and particularly teaching more music again, is a great idea, I'm not convinced that it would help. I really think that's more of a problem with the music industry itself, which could be an article unto itself.

Speaking of "good music" this is where we come upon another issue I have with the linked article, which is what actually makes for good music. The article talks about a "decline in the quality of music which has been proven scientifically", using three criteria: timbre, pitch, and loudness. I would argue that proving anything about music scientifically is kind of a pointless exercise. Sure, you can measure the things they talk about, and that gives you some data about the music in question which was derived using scientific methods, but what does it actually tell you? Personally, I would say that I judge a song on how much I enjoy it, and that tends to be influenced mostly by how it makes me feel, and how much impact it has. Does it get me fired up? Does it get me REALLY fired up? Or sad, or whatever... you get the point. Sure, the measurements they talk about may have something to do with it, especially in certain cases. I think loudness/dynamics in particular can have an impact on this, and I do think the so-called "loudness wars" have been a bad thing. However, none of these measurements are really definitive. For instance, there are punk rock songs that I enjoy just as much as my favorite classical pieces. I can certainly recognize that there is more compositional and musical skill involved in the classical piece, and it probably has more dynamics and is probably more musically complex, but that doesn't change how I actually feel. Another example, this time more specific: Dream Theater vs. Napalm Death. By these three measurements, Dream Theater would probably be the "better" band, but personally, I'd rather listen to Napalm Death.

The last issue I'll go into here is the author's disparagement of "music electronics". I'll give him the autotune thing, that has indeed been overused and abused. However, claiming that you could "easily argue" that U2's The Edge is "more an accomplished sound engineer than a talented guitarist" is a bit much, I think. I'm not a huge fan myself, and perhaps he is a great sound engineer, I don't know much about the guy. I suppose I wouldn't really say he's one of the greatest guitarists of his generation or anything, but I wouldn't slag on his talent because he uses tempo-synched delays, either. I mean, come on. Beside that though, I would argue that the art of sound engineering is every bit as valid as being talented at playing an instrument. A lot of my favorite music is either largely, or at least equally, engineered as much as it is composed in the traditional sense. Most of my favorite music is industrial or some other form of electronic-based music, and although there is a lot of musical talent in a lot of it, the effects and sound design are often just as important to the feeling of the song as the composition. I'm not really looking for an "unplugged" Godflesh or Skinny Puppy album. I don't mean to downplay the talent of anyone who does play acoustic music of any kind, or any instrument for that matter, and since I play bass and guitar rather poorly myself, I definitely appreciate the work involved. I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to personally like the music any more or less myself, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

I guess I would sum up what I'm trying to say thusly: I do agree that the overall quality of popular music has declined somewhat over time, but I disagree that more music classes would fix the problem. As I said above, I think a bigger part of the problem is the very nature of the music industry, and to elaborate more on this could be another article in itself, so I'll leave it there. My other main issue would be the concept of technology ruining music. I suppose it is true that technology has made it easier for everyone in many ways to record and publish music, including those who make "bad" music. However, it has also opened up more possibilities for good music, and made it possible for more good music to get heard.

Anyway, that's enough from me, I've got music to make. :) Feel free to comment below, I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this... and if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading!