Whenever I poll the new generation concerning the appeal of my music all I get are unfilled tick boxes though the comment section usually just says one word...BOOMER!

 

My goal with this thread is not to just like or dislike. My goal is the quality of the music. The new generation will not have something called nostalgia to be proud of their past when they grow up. To be proud of the music that was produced in their youth. This will not happen to them. I fear that they are not even interested in their own past.
Nostalgia is a real thing and has nothing to do with reminiscing about the past. Something becomes nostalgic when it has the high musical quality. Today's new generation is a generation that produces nothing good. Unfortunately, they don't even know the meaning of good and not being good. Their only criterion for evaluation is whether their thumbs are pointing up or down which usually changes with their daily feelings. I know these words of mine are repetitive and may no longer be of interest to anyone, but this is the truth.

 

Boomer could mean old, or then again, it could be child speak for awesome perhaps? . As a consequence, I'm still trying to work out if that's a good thing or bad?

 

I'm sure, if you look hard enough, you'll find many exceptions to that logic.

 

I'm so far ahead of my time, I'm not sure ANY generation likes my music.

Most of my songs are kinda modern in style (non-genre conforming electronica), but mostly over 10 minutes long. So the old people don't like it, and the young people lack the attention span for it.

I'll become famous in about 5000 years, once we nuke ourselves to oblivion, a new civilization rises from the ashes and someone finds my music on a hard drive that somehow survived. Can't wait!

 

You're new here Wick (Ha ha). I laughed at my own joke.

 

I tried very hard and almost came to the conclusion that such a thing is not possible. Today's generation is musically illiterate and their only asset is the software installed on their laptops. That's it. They don't have musical assets that they can pass on to others. Like someone who has spent all the money he has earned and has not saved anything for his future. Today's generation can't even make money from the right ways. A generation whose only pride is in claiming to live in the age of communication, an era that the previous generations created for them. Yet they have nothing to convey other than short greeting messages and ...

 

I'm quite sure they're affirming my awesomeness.

 

This is a very relevant and interesting question fTRoLLster (I believe!), for anyone who does not want to compose just to be tucked away in a drawer, for posterity. What I describe is not exactly related to this current generation, but it shows how the experience of appreciation can be evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively (whether through the measurement of others or the artisan's own sensation).

About 12 years ago, a sonata for string orchestra that I composed was performed in a prestigious hall where concerts take place in my city. The reception from the audience was positive (my composition professors and colleagues found the piece varied in terms of atmosphere and quite tense and agitated, with some telling me that it reminded them, in terms of character, of music from action films. My piece, which has influences from Stravinsky, Bartók, John Adams, John Williams, and Don Davis, was performed alongside two pieces by Mozart that completed the evening's program).

But no comment moved me as much as that of an elderly lady sitting in the front row at the end of the concert. I was surrounded by people around my age—35 at the time—as well as others in their 50s and 60s. She was in the first row of chairs, and I noticed that, when my sonata began, she sat on the edge of her seat. At the end of the concert, this lady came to congratulate me, saying: '—Young man, the first piece was yours, right? I would like to congratulate you. I heard people talking... I don’t know, I think people you know, saying that your music is tense, very cinematic... but to me, it conveyed energy, movement, passion, and I, at the height of my 84 years, like to feel that because I go to a concert hall to stay engaged, not to fall asleep. So, thank you for bringing interesting sensations to me.'

Despite the overall positive reception, that moment meant much more to me than anything else on the night of the premiere. It was one of the best rewards I ever received. And I have no shame in saying that I care about reception. We create music for human beings, and every artist must go where real people are. We do not always, from the heights of our creative arrogance, worry about or even notice many things. But sometimes, what we compose has an impact on others, and that certainly matters (or should matter!)

 

Last edited: May 31, 2025

Thanks @Mynock for your report, I'm thrilled!

I've learned that everyone who does something wants, needs, and deserves appreciation.

Let me give you an example:

Every day when you leave your house, consider that someone laid the sidewalk slabs you're walking on, someone paved the road, someone designed and manufactured the traffic lights, and someone screwed them in place. These people deserve our recognition.

With this example, you can perceive the entire city that was built from nothing and recognize and acknowledge your appreciation for your fellow human beings, those who are probably long gone and those who are still alive, for their achievements.

 

fTRoLLster, in general, your view on music production is quite rigid and elitist. It seems that, for you, only individuals with formal qualifications and training should produce music, and that the democratization of production tools has led to the degradation of musical quality. But you overlook something fundamental: unlike engineering or medicine, music is not a matter of life and death, nor does it require deep technical knowledge to be appreciated or created. Many musical geniuses (some self-taught and experimental)) have contributed significantly to the evolution of music without academic training.

Moreover, accessibility to music production tools has allowed different styles and cultures to be expressed, enriching the global artistic landscape. This does not mean that all production is of low quality, but rather that there is a greater diversity of technical levels. So, should only those with formal education be allowed to create music? Even at the expense of spontaneous creativity and popular music, which often has a much more significant cultural impact than academic music?

Why is it so difficult to understand that music is not a field governed by strict and precise rules like mechanical engineering or medicine, but rather one of expression and appreciation? Creativity and subjectivity are essential in art, enabling innovation and new forms of expression... whether more complex or simpler.

The problem with your line of thinking is that this perspective can overlook the richness of spontaneity and accessibility that the democratization of instruments and technology offers. Many popular genres emerged precisely from intuitive experimentation, without academic rigor, and yet profoundly impacted mainstream musical culture. Furthermore, some self-taught artists and popular musicians developed innovative styles that later influenced classical music.

Your argument is relevant when discussing concerns about technical quality in musical craftsmanship, the impact of technology on musical perception, discussions on nostalgia, musical literacy, the metaphor of spending everything without saving for the future, and the quality of instant communication (which does not always lead to a meaningful exchange of culture or values).

However, it remains pedantic due to its generalizations, such as criticizing the 'academic illiteracy' of the new generation, and misconceptions about nostalgia (which is not necessarily linked to technical quality but rather to the emotions and memories it evokes in those who experienced it). Additionally, there is an obsession with control and rigidity in overseeing musical production, which merely reflects a hierarchy of validation that ignores art’s role as a democratic and accessible form of expression. Not to mention the absolutist judgments on musical evolution, such as 'the new generation produces nothing good', which only demonstrate an inability to engage with diversity.

I have often seen, in academic settings, highly technical composers creating works devoid of any emotional depth, failing to connect meaningfully with any context (resulting in cold and disconnected pieces). Likewise, someone may have little formal musical training yet create something powerful and expressive due to context, emotion, or their belonging to a specific genre or style—or even through hybridization. Technological advancements in music may have led to an explosion of amateur productions, but they also brought creative freedom and stylistic diversity. Musical quality always depends on a combination of factors: skill, creative context, and the artist’s emotion, and the outcome can display different levels of independence from the path they took to become a creator... just as it happens in reality.

Perhaps the key questions are:

1. Is a high level of formal training necessary to create something meaningful?
   
   
2. Can artistic expression occur in a valid, fluent, and authentic way, regardless of formal technique?
   
   
3. Does academic training automatically guarantee artistic depth and relevance, or can innovation and originality also emerge from self-teaching and intuitive experimentation?
   
   
4. Wouldn’t emotional connection, cultural context, and the artist’s intent be the true foundations of art, regardless of formal training norms?

 

My eyes have glazed over

 

Not to bore you with a little economics, but the electric razor, the Walkman, the cell phone, the CD, the Palm Pilot, the iPod... there was no demand for those, until they were mass produced.

 

Though generally true this may be, though generally I agree with the above statement, the fact remains that "contributed significantly" is highly debatable.

I could wax philosophically about Blues, Boogie-Woogie, Ragtime, and Jazz, as well as Samba, Bossa Nova, and African or Indian music falling into the later ("music without academic training") category.

But the key word here is academic, or academia as a whole. The greatest philosophers and mathematicians of the Classical (Greek, Roman) and Renaissance eras learned from (their) masters (Archimedes, Socrates, Plato, etc). As did Stravinsky, as did Beethoven, as did Mozart, as did Bach... No academia was involved, and much "contributed significantly to the evolution of music" was accomplished.

So yes, history tells us, shows us, that we can "contribute significantly to the evolution of music without academic training."

However, all these individuals, including the unsung Bluesmen who were never recorded (on physical media or in history) had teachers, and were taught. I was mostly an autodidact during my teens, but I studied formally with an 80 year old lady (born in the 19th century) at age 3, then with a conductor (a young conductor) at age 6. And then no one (family reasons)...

Eventually I went to a music school in Boston, studied formally (academically as you might say), and became, what, an elitist?

After school, touring and playing all around the world, when I'd meet a local musician, they'd ask: "who was your teacher? who did you play with? where did you study?" These are not inconsequential questions - they show that we care about passing on the knowledge.

Didn't study? No formal musical training? Toots Thielemans. Couldn't read, but boy, could he play. "Who did you play with, Toots? Django? Welcome!"

I could go on and elaborate, but I've read 2-3 of your postings earlier, and your intelligence shines through, so I feel no need to do so.

My point is not to rebuke, or exercise detestable whataboutism. We do (and must) respect those who've put in the effort, those who are perpetual students of music, and especially those with irrepressible, volcanic talent a la Toots, or Ray Charles, or Jeff Healey. And we do so because their playing, their musical output is undeniable and formidable, like a volcano.

You can't love music and not be an elitist in a way; you can't go to the Louvres, or Hermitage, or Prado, or Rijksmuseum, and not have an emotional reaction to the art on display - which means you are an elitist by default, just by patronizing these institutions. There's plenty of art in the slums of any city, or in villages. I don't see the masses rushing to see it, or listen to it - much less pay for it.

My point then is that there's a high degree of hypocrisy in any anti-elitist argument. Sure, it's art, go ahead, pick up the guitar or easel or hammer and chisel, and create away. That's where you start. But if that's where you end up - unschooled, untrained, unread - don't come crying "unfair" and "gatekeeping" and "nepo baby" to your social media platform. Janet Jackson famously sang, "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" I would ask, "What have you done (effort, sacrifices) for your music, for your art?

If that makes me an elitist, so be it. I would contend it makes me an art lover.

 

Most of the good music was from the hardware era. Since the advent of software and global access, the quality of music has drastically declined.

 

At the risk of jumping into a completely pointless discussion, that's not necessarily true. It's just that now we get exposed to a lot more of the mediocre background noise then we used to because at one point gatekeepers would screen all that stuff out and it never made it to recording or radio; now it's all right in our face. And as a result of that the mediocre stuff is also become immensely popular through dedicated promotion and manipulation. There may be a dumbing down of the consuming populace at large but that doesn't mean music itself is getting worse.

 

You answered my words yourself. If you had paid attention to the second part of my post, I said global access. Hardware, like software, is not transferable to everyone. In the past, hardware was only accessible to those who had the ability to work with it or whose goal was to create lasting art. Because of the high cost of those instruments, most of their financial backers sought to discover talented individuals and train them to make good music. But now, software and music sharing platforms have eliminated the role of the intermediary observers. Now everyone has become their own supervisor. While most people do not have such a capability. Every production needs supervisors and inspectors to check the quality of the products. But unfortunately, when software is produced and made available to everyone in large quantities, this is the moment when good music must be said goodbye. This fact cannot be ignored. We must accept, in some way, that not everyone is capable of making good music. I don't know where in my statement it is unacceptable that some people would like to disagree with. Not any, just only.

 

"Need" may be a bit strong of a word, but this is pretty close. "Usually benefits from" is more accurate. It's why many artists and producers will recommend never mixing or mastering your own music. It almost always benefits from an objective other party with fresh ears and an open mind providing some varying levels of quality control. Unfortunately, also as usual; the intent of your post is not to provide advice, but to diminish other peoples' efforts.

 

Yes, a lot. For whatever reason the type of music I make continues to attract confused young people with too much time on their hands and too many weird interests.