Comment by fortran77 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fortran77 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In order to find "new music" the listeners themselves have to put in some effort

This is a very good point. I listen to a lot of great "new" music, but I do that by listening to oddball radio stations (like KCSM San Mateo), going to music festivals (just got back from the Sicily Jazz Festival in Italy), and "new music" events (like the Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music https://cabrillomusic.org/ ), and I play the piano with amateur groups and in amateur recitals.

It takes a lot of work, but all I hear is new music, or fresh takes on old music. But sadly, the audience for this is either people like me (men 55+ and some women) and kids who are music majors. There's little in the middle.

I think the average kid who simply followed pop and rock back in the 70s knew more about "music" than the kid today to whom it's just a branding, or a backdrop for a TikTok. They don't listen and pay attention. Pop culture doesn't resolve around music anymore. There's too many other things (games, social media) to worry about.

Counter to this, I know some teenagers who are obsessed with music in the way (time wise) mainly only teenagers can be. Currently enjoying a summer off doing 10+ hour days focused on that, collaborations with other people online, everything digital or digitized.

You know what they won’t be doing? Any of the venues and sources you describe. Not a value judgment, by the way, just an observation and a curiosity of what you are really seeing is a silo effect where you just don’t see what they are into and vice versa.

> You know what they won’t be doing? Any of the venues and sources you describe.

And I get to hear a lot of their music. It's very clear they haven't heard a wide range of music, and thus for the most part they make music within a tiny range of what is possible, and you get painfully conventional music.

Being ignorant of the past doesn't make you a better musician.

Not one song on the pop charts this year would have sounded particularly out of place in 1992.

In 1970, the music on the charts would have sounded like alien voices to people in 1940.

Well maybe. These kids are listening pretty broadly too, fwiw.

No offense, but the "new music" you're talking about, that primarily appeals to men aged 55+, is new jazz and classical music? Kids these days don't pay enough attention to the hip new composers? Come on.

Nobody would call modern art music "classical music."

When I was high school/college age, I certainly paid attention to the composers who were writing for film, or synthesizers, etc. I just don't think enough kids today are positioned to be able to appreciate it.

The artists performing this aren't all old men, for the most part they're a diverse group of young people.

From my perspective, you really are stuck in a bubble of old music, whether or not those takes are "new". Modern art music is old music. Jazz, even the most forward-thinking of forms, is old music. I don't think you're able to draw the conclusion that young people aren't interested in music from the concerts you attend, because you are simply listening to old music.

If you want to see hordes of young people who are genuinely interested in music (new music), you'll find them within the sprawling umbrella of club music. Not your local top 40 pop club, but the underground places.

Young people who are interested in music are focused on novel atmospheres/noises coupled with danceable rhythms. They're not interested in harmony, chord progressions, or sounds created near-exclusively by acoustic or electroacoustic instruments. That's the purview of old music, and that's why you'll only find it in music schools (which are fantastically archaic) + old people.

On that note, I'm willing to accept the hypothesis that the "average" young person today is less interested in music than in the past. It's probably true. But your evidence is... well, I think in a bit of a bubble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com