"Secretly, in my heart of hearts, I still hope to be able to make something of myself, but who can do anything after Beethoven?"
Franz Schubert to Josef von Spaun
Notes for Luib 1858, quoted in an English translation in Schubert Memoirs by his Friends, p. 128
95% of all music that people care about in 2024 was made after Beethoven. Believing that a previous era was a Golden Age, and that everything of true value has already happened, is not at all new. It is remarkable however, how many generations fall into the same trap. If one goes on Youtube to watch a music video, no matter the genre or era, there will be someone, guaranteed, who says "They just don't make music like this anymore!" It can be the lowest of the low, the trashiest tune, and someone, somewhere values it above anything that is made today. The thing is, that it is literally impossible for every generation to be right, because the young people today will no doubt think the same thing in twenty years about the music that their children enjoy. It is of course important to state up front that not all eras in any endeavour are going to be equally impressive. Artistic media are prone to the peculiarities of their age, from technology to social and cultural changes, that influence what is valued and what is seen as good art. The thing is though, that this measured caveat is not at all what drives the large majority of those who long for a previous time, usually that of their late teenage/early adult years. What drives them is the unshakeable belief that every generation that followed had it wrong: paraphrasing Homer Simpson, it is a scientific fact that music attained perfection in those years that one is naturally disposed to care most about it.
The Golden Age Fallacy is a trap and a self inflicted handicap, greatly limiting the art that one is exposed to, impacting severely on the ability of the individual to truly appreciate and engage with vital new work. If it were just an individual's choice to shut themselves off from countless works that would raise their spirits and enrich their lives, there would be no need to engage any further. It is an unfortunate reality however that this self imposed ignorance runs rampant, so frequently shaming younger people, and all those who are open to new work, painting an almost entirely false picture of the purpose and power of art, turning it into an odious exercise in gatekeeping. Why is this such a common occurrence, though? One reason, to which I keep returning, is that everyone likes to feel special. That they stand out from the crowd and that they are privy to a great secret, that they are discerning, that they aren't one of the sheep who follow along with any old thing. This desire is not problematic in of itself. It is a valuable thing indeed to have critical thinking skills and to try to attain something approaching independence where it concerns evaluation of art. The problem comes through how many confuse independent thought with arbitrary rejection of what is popular. It is so much easier to call the general public sheep, than it is to actually engage with the substance of the art that they love.
It is a scary thing to be out of your depth, for the tools that were developed over a lifetime to no longer serve you. You grow up and you are exposed to the music and art that your family value most. You are taught that this is the standard. So if you grow up on The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, you usually think that any sensible person values them too, and that this music is unimpeachably genuine. In this way it is similar to the religion in which one is raised. What is normal isn't examined with the same vigor that one would an interloping belief system. The otherwise ridiculous claims are thought perfectly sensible if one grows up with them, where as those in another belief system are immediately apparent as fatuous. When one starts to become a true individual in their teenage years, shaking off some of the shackles of their parents and siblings, there is a rush of excitement, the thrill of understanding the bounty of art that seems to be made just for them. That feeling that one is in sync with the world around them, that they understand and "get" what is most important is intoxicating. When the world passes them by though, it is a crushing blow.
The bitterness that is so common to see on social media, the rejection of anything resembling popular music, comes, I think, from this feeling of being left behind. So why not simply keep yourself open to that new music? We go back to that feeling of being out of your depth. Music has shifted and many of the foundations on which the individual's taste were defined, are no longer relevant. To admit that, and to start at the bottom, or even better, to understand that the differences are not nearly as important as the similarities, is scary. A person has their whole life to build up the appearance of knowing what they are talking about where it concerns art. To throw all that out and start again is painful and terrifying. The response of many is to simply reject it; to refuse to acknowledge that millions of people are, in fact, just following the same artistic path as they did when they were young, and that they are simply wrong in what they love. This is of course a most patronizing conclusion to reach, and any number of lame, false stabs at objective evaluation of art's worth, can't disguise that what drives it is fear and ignorance. Fear of being outed as a beginner in middle age, and ignorance of the beautiful, life affirming music to be found just under the surface of an unfamiliar genre.
Let us not get tangled up here in the vagaries of personal tastes. No-one has to like anything they don't want to like, or vice versa. No matter if it is the loftiest, most cherished classic, or universally panned trash, I have long held the belief that one's most important commitment has to be to themselves. If you get meaning and goodness from a piece of art, no matter how unpopular, that is the most important thing. To posture though, as so many do, as superior and discerning, because one's standards are ostensibly higher than millions of other people who find everything good and inspiring and enriching in popular music, that is something that cannot be allowed to pass without comment. Preferences are not rules. Music need not have 1) lyrics doubling as poetry, 2) prominent guitars, 3) or songs written by the same person who is performing it, to be considered legitimate. Blame Rolling Stone for introducing so many of the insidious, culturally blinkered "standards" from which we are still feeling the negative effects. Songs don't need to tell or a story, or to be high minded or have a message. Some songs need just have great musical hooks, excellent production and great performances. Looking for the wrong thing in a song, because one doesn't understand what a genre and its audience are interested in, is not the failing of the song, but the listener.
Those who enjoy popular music in 2024 are thankfully too busy having fun, to fully engage with the misery of those who bemoan the state of the charts. This lack of engagement is perhaps part of why those who spend their time in this argument believe that their position is secure, when in fact it couldn't be less so. How one could look at Beyonce, Taylor Swift and yes, The Weeknd, and not be, even in some small, begrudging way, impressed by the level of their craft, by the continuing breaking of records, both critical and commercial, and most importantly by the immeasurable love and devotion that they inspire in their fans, I do not know. Watching The Weeknd's exquisite concert film, Live at Sofi Stadium, shows us a sophistication in performance, in musicality and in artistic vision, that some want us to believe is dead and gone. Seeing him live in June of 2023, it was even more apparent, showing a versatility and command of the stage that genuinely makes comparisons to people like Michael Jackson and Prince, not at all unreasonable.
In 2024 there is an abundance of great music being made, some very popular, some well hidden. The drive to create and to bring people together through music that makes people dance and sing along, to feel the thrill of being alive, to inspiring people to make a change in their lives and perhaps the world around them, is no less present today than it was in any number of previous "Golden Ages". Everyone has artists, around which, their musical tastes were built; artists who excelled, even among very talented peers. Michael Jackson was my first musical love, and established many, if not most, of the things which drive me musically. He was exceptional, there is no doubt of that. To say though, "Music just isn't as good as it was then!" and point to Michael Jackson as your reason, is to place an entirely unreasonable burden on other artists, just as Schubert placed on himself, wondering how he could ever live up to Beethoven. Likewise those who point to Prince as an argument against the power and beauty of modern music, because he was a one man band, are failing to understand that he was also the exception in his day. Consider instead, that at one point in the 1980s, we had Michael Jackson, Prince and Stevie Wonder making elite tier music and there were still people saying "Music was better in my day!" Great music is there for all to discover, if they have the courage to discard the Golden Age Fallacy, to open themselves up to the prospect that while things have changed, music is still carrying on like it has always done, pushing forward, bringing meaning to countless lives. Please don't shut yourself off from the beauty and wonder that is to be found. Discard the myopic idea that your generation is the only correct one through history. Be courageous. Don't get caught in the trap. Great music isn't dead and gone; it is happening right now.
.gif)
.gif)