I don't know if it's explicitly because of the "poptimism" trend that Freddie highlights here, but having a teenage daughter now, I can report its...weird...how utterly unimportant music seems to be for teens now compared to the 1990s. People used to construct their entire identifies around the genre of music they listened to. Hell, I …
I don't know if it's explicitly because of the "poptimism" trend that Freddie highlights here, but having a teenage daughter now, I can report its...weird...how utterly unimportant music seems to be for teens now compared to the 1990s. People used to construct their entire identifies around the genre of music they listened to. Hell, I did it too - I went through several phases from my teens to early 20s, where I liked different obscure musical genres, which over time grew more and more niche and underground before I mellowed out with age. Maybe my 8th grader is just friends with more "normies" than I ever was, but she has like...friends who like Disney soundtracks and shit. But for the most part, music isn't as important to them as movies, or books, or viral videos. It's just not a big thing any more.
Which really suggests that the self-important posturing of Pitchfork codes it as being for old people. Because of course that's who reads Pitchfork now...who else would?
100%. My best guess is that, now that piracy and streaming have made music ubiquitous and cheap, the perceived value has collapsed (and it’s hard to imagine that changing). In the heydays of CDs, dropping twenty bucks on every hour or music felt like a real commitment, so it was easy to imagine it was important somehow. Now that everything is everywhere...eh.
Yes, and now the focus has shifted from albums (which most of us in the 70s, when I was growing up, were concerned with) to individual tracks. The idea of the album as a coherent stand-alone statement (in artistic terms) has absolutely no currency with young listeners today.
It didn’t in 1960 either though. Singles were the main way people digested music for a long time and eventually the LP format took over for economic as well as artistic reasons. I think long form musical output will gain currency with “the kids” again at some point, although the cycle will probably never fully repeat thanks to music having basically zero monetary value anymore...
there are a lot of technological/commercial factors that are transforming the consumption of music, and Pitchfork is downstream of all of them. that's what makes it a bit frustrating to me when people rag on Modern Pitchfork or poptimism as if they're the final boss in all this rather than the customer service desk, figuratively speaking
Maybe they don't live for music because the music they know how to access is objectively pretty bad? And Pitchfork is guilty of helping construct the world where that's the case.
I mean, my wife and I play music in the car all the time, and my kids either have no reaction at all or actively loathe it (my daughter explicitly asked my wife to stop playing The Postal Service - she has said what I play is "better" but left it at that).
Of course, kids typically hate their parents music, because they want to show they're different people, but most go through a phase where are at least open to it before forming their own musical identities.
The kids I know, having a teen, all know how to access pretty much anything available on streaming. They like music, but it’s all more of a grab bag than a coherent statement of taste, and they’re chill with each other’s differences. On the other hand, they are deadly serious when it comes to their tastes in television, sometimes downright nasty about it.
I don't know if it's explicitly because of the "poptimism" trend that Freddie highlights here, but having a teenage daughter now, I can report its...weird...how utterly unimportant music seems to be for teens now compared to the 1990s. People used to construct their entire identifies around the genre of music they listened to. Hell, I did it too - I went through several phases from my teens to early 20s, where I liked different obscure musical genres, which over time grew more and more niche and underground before I mellowed out with age. Maybe my 8th grader is just friends with more "normies" than I ever was, but she has like...friends who like Disney soundtracks and shit. But for the most part, music isn't as important to them as movies, or books, or viral videos. It's just not a big thing any more.
Which really suggests that the self-important posturing of Pitchfork codes it as being for old people. Because of course that's who reads Pitchfork now...who else would?
100%. My best guess is that, now that piracy and streaming have made music ubiquitous and cheap, the perceived value has collapsed (and it’s hard to imagine that changing). In the heydays of CDs, dropping twenty bucks on every hour or music felt like a real commitment, so it was easy to imagine it was important somehow. Now that everything is everywhere...eh.
Yes, and now the focus has shifted from albums (which most of us in the 70s, when I was growing up, were concerned with) to individual tracks. The idea of the album as a coherent stand-alone statement (in artistic terms) has absolutely no currency with young listeners today.
It didn’t in 1960 either though. Singles were the main way people digested music for a long time and eventually the LP format took over for economic as well as artistic reasons. I think long form musical output will gain currency with “the kids” again at some point, although the cycle will probably never fully repeat thanks to music having basically zero monetary value anymore...
Well, yes--that's why I referenced the 70s specifically. :)
there are a lot of technological/commercial factors that are transforming the consumption of music, and Pitchfork is downstream of all of them. that's what makes it a bit frustrating to me when people rag on Modern Pitchfork or poptimism as if they're the final boss in all this rather than the customer service desk, figuratively speaking
Maybe they don't live for music because the music they know how to access is objectively pretty bad? And Pitchfork is guilty of helping construct the world where that's the case.
I mean, my wife and I play music in the car all the time, and my kids either have no reaction at all or actively loathe it (my daughter explicitly asked my wife to stop playing The Postal Service - she has said what I play is "better" but left it at that).
Of course, kids typically hate their parents music, because they want to show they're different people, but most go through a phase where are at least open to it before forming their own musical identities.
Interesting. What do you think is the cause, then?
The kids I know, having a teen, all know how to access pretty much anything available on streaming. They like music, but it’s all more of a grab bag than a coherent statement of taste, and they’re chill with each other’s differences. On the other hand, they are deadly serious when it comes to their tastes in television, sometimes downright nasty about it.