Pop in the Era of Distraction

Music keeps me sane and I consume it lin arge quantities, not puny .mp3s. I lost 5 hard drives totaling 10G of music I've collected over the years. I lost a ton of music I know I'll never be able to replace. The music I lost was of the timeless variety: awesome classical, jazz greats, the awesome singer songwriter types, and so on and so forth. Luckily, I have at least 10 more hard drives full of music that I can consume as I care to and at my leisure, enjoying every single uncompressed note in my music in the foreground life.

This is an astute assessment of the business of pop music in 2018 and for the foreseeable future. But it's telling that the analysis says nothing about what creative artists are trying to express, and whether any mainstream pop artists still are interested in breaking through the noise and distraction to create art that listeners will care about 10 or 20 years from now. If the Ariana Grandes of the world want to make a lasting impression they'll need to provide something a bit deeper than a prosaic diary of their personal grievances and triumphs. Part of the problem is the debased state of music criticism, which today focuses overwhelmingly on petty, momentary questions of popularity and career development, and too little on whether the music stands up to a close, repeated listening and seems fresh and impactful each time.If critics would consistently let music-makers and their audiences know that artistry comes first, and focus primarily on whether the performance under review meets that expectation, I think the state of music could improve.

Lest we get lost in a notion of "authenticity" that never existed, we need to remember that pop music has always been about moments. Teen idols have long been manufactured; Fabian wasn't particularly known for his singing skills. Style in many ways has always been as important as the music itself. "Authenticity" has been a contrivance, going back to the days of Ralph Peer and beyond. I'm not a fan of a lot of contemporary pop music. Much of what I hear on the radio is sleek, cold, hard and shiny. But even when it's massed, leveled, and buffed to a high gloss by hit factories and manufactured stars, pop music tells us about the our conditions and aspirations. It's important, and liberating, and threatening, because it's about identity, self-discovery and fellowship. The most artless music may say as much as the most gifted politician when it articulates our hard-won truths and inchoate dreams.

To me, a lot of new pop sounds monotonous. Singers also sing differently now; many of them whine really loudly through their noses and it is incredibly annoying. Even worse, the whining follows me from supermarket to gym to coffee shop. It's everywhere.

Some fair counterpoints in the comments, but overall this was a great read.

The term artist seems very debased these days. I am impressed by musicians- not performers. People who can play an instrument- not talk rhythmically over a drum machine. People who can sing without auto tune. People who can write their own material. People who allude to other genres and works- but not "sample" them- anybody can cut and paste. People who do not have to tell you how good they are because the work speaks for itself. Most of what passes for music these days is in a style and form that serves those too lazy to master an instrument and learn of music. A guy I knew who was a very good musician who could sing and play a guitar, described himself late in life as a "student" of the guitar- not a master of it. I like longhaired music in many forms and am not a snob about it. I can enjoy Billy Strayhorn and then listen to a throwaway 1970's AM pop song- both are good in their own way. "You'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs I look around me and I see it isn't so Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs And what's wrong with that I'd like to know 'Cause here I go again..." Paul McCartney https://youtu.be/ap87QgZKTNw

Slick, shallow, truncated, lacking wit and soulfulness. Reflective of the times we are living through.

I miss the A&R men.

Typically, I'm with the naysayers (although I want to puncture my eardrums for any Ariana Grande treacle). But ... having a teenage daughter who enjoys music as much as I, there are some of these artists worth the listen. Billie Eilish, if she plays her cards very well, will be a fine jazz singer some day. H.E.R I like even more than my daughter ("Carried Away" is mesmerizing; and the bass line kills me). Try me ...

There is a lot of great music in this country. Talented musicians create some stunning and imaginative creations. Sadly, the vast majority of them are ignored by the music industry, and subsequently the "pop critics" at the New York Times. When I read the commentaries, the podcasts, and reviews of the people they elect to follow, I end up shaking my head and wondering how these people ever got a job at this newspaper. Over and over, I hear more about the technology of the industry, as opposed to the quality of the music. Is this stuff any good? Who knows? The only standard they seem to follow is based on pure popularity and marketing. Again, there is a lot of talent in this country that is ignored for the sake of dumbed down repetitive and, frankly, patronizing fluff. It's really sad that these critic don't set their aim higher. Frankly, it's lazy work.

Give it time. . .streaming is the new '45 and that too will evolve.

I think there's a lot of hasty and slightly opportunistic conclusions in this article. If history teaches us anything it's that fads have always existed in the world of art, there were a myriad musicians or painters which were incredibly 'en vogue' during their lifetime just to be relegated to total obscurity. I think Tierra Whack has her 5 minutes of fame now but fail to see how she could be an exponent of some new paradigm in creation. Sure the networks and streaming do change the way that music is consumed and created, but I don't think it's an all encompassing phenomenon, bear in mind that the internet also allows for greater fragmentation, there's just a myriad more niche categories now, so the idea that in 2018 one can generalize things so crudely seems a bit absurd to me.

I’m sorry, I get this is a critique, but our lives have ups and down. Sometimes we just need to switch off, have some fun, enjoy something before getting back into work. And being starved for more content or “distractions” is not something new, the beetles craze, elvis, people had memorabilia all over their walls, and surely talked to their friends about said subjects sans a phone. Sci-fi entertainment self publishing and distributing fan content from own monies also not immune. Perhaps people were just looking for that distraction, since before *gasp* gen y. And then they go about their day. So what. I think technology is good, a lot of music would not exist if it otherwise not be there. Would it deprave you from hearing great music u so sorely miss, no. You can go and find it. Are you upset that the music you want to hear is not at the forefront above the current trends, sure. But I don’t know, being on the nytimes (where you can adjust news you want to receive) you can do that with music too. Also, I don’t understand, do you prefer artists to have a long, suffering, private yoda moment before getting into the public eye, is this the suggested solution? Personally, if we’re jumping on the band wagon of complaining technology is ‘making things move too fast’, Harry Styles has great note changes in his live concerts that would otherwise sound great on the final tracks. If you want good music, go watch his live performances, then get Spotify for ur suggestions.

As usual, these comments are flooded by people who believe they know better than someone else what we should be listening to. It may not be my thing--I was born too early--but if only as cultural phenomena, pop music artists are interesting. What do they say about us and the environment we've created for our 'children'? How do we make an "attention economy" more human? ("Attention economy" BTW is a brilliant way to describe our current environment. I don't know whether the author coined it, but if he did, I salute him.) Ultimately, music is a form of communication. It is odd that we focus so heavily on what young people, presumably those with the least to communicate, are saying. Part of the reason, I think, is that a lot of us older folk have lost the courage to say what needs to be said. So young people struggle. They know something needs to be said, but few of them know what it is.

Pop music is a distraction.

I hear this pop music in the gym while working out, and to me, I'll just stick with classic rock and pop which has real substance.

Just pure garbage. The fact that your paper calls it “music” is yellow journalism.

Lame! Crank up a Steely Dan LP.

With the possible exception of Ms. Grande, the rest of these performers are pure dreck.

Even though this generation's music is appealing to them, I give thanks every day I was born in fifties and grew up with amazing creative mature musical talent. For these kids it's better to look good than to sound good. Such a superficial shame.

The thing is ariana grande aside, none of these people can actually sing. it's the musical version of the emperor with no clothes--- careers take off with no talent.