>hurr durr new music is not worse, you just have to dig deep and search if you want to find the good music, but it's there
Well if new music is not worse, why did I NOT need to search for the good music back in the day? I could just turn on the radio or the TV and the good music would find me, not the other way around.
Fact: Music was better years ago.
Music is subjective retard
Art and culture is literally dying
>dude literal garbage is art cause art is subjective lmao
Okay...
>why did I NOT need to search for the good music back in the day?
You did, retard
No I didn't? I turned on the radio or MTV and the good artists were playing there. If I try that now I just get literal putrid shit.
This board is laughable
This post is literally unbelievable.
t. listens exclusively to (c)rap
t. laughingstock irl
It's actually literally true. If you disagree, you're obviously too young to know any better.
No, nirvana were not good.
Back in the day you could find these artists just by turning on the radio or some music channel on TV:
>Bob Dylan
>Tom Petty
>Willy Nelson
>Sherryl Crow
>Garbage
>Michael Jackson
>Prince
>Red Hot Chili Peppers
>Arctic Monkeys
>The Strokes
>Metallica
>Guns N Roses
>The Coup
etc.
You have to admit that at least some of these artists are good.
Holy fucking shit
If you don't enjoy any of those artists you are an edgy contrarian kid.
I cannot believe how far this board has fallen.
>waaaaa why do they like pop music!?
>they are supposed to HATE it!!! you can only like obscure soundcloud rap!!!
>you can only like obscure soundcloud rap!!!
What even is this post?
What is this post?
based af
Subjectivism, when it comes to the arts (I'm not too keen on the concept of a wholly subjective reality but this is Any Forums not /lit/ so fuck off with that), is pretty undeniable. There is nothing that makes anything better than anything else. What makes Faust better than Foo Fighters? What makes Nas better than Nicki Minaj? Sure, sales and (to a much lesser extent) influence can be somewhat objectively gauged but neither of those directly correlate with artistic merit. Surely Duchamp already killed whatever classicist pre-modernist ideals you had about "skill" and "craft" in art. If 4'33" and Pulse Demon are equal to Beethoven's 9th and Kid A, nothing can be objective about musical taste.
But, does that mean as creators of art -- surely there are Any Forumssicians here and not simply consumers -- that we should abandon any naive quests for beauty for beauty's sake or just give up on making things enjoyable and just shit into microphones because subjectivity says it's equal to Mozart? Well, no. There are no universal parameters by which art can be judged, but in a societal sense art does have something of a utilitarian purpose (though if you wish to eschew this there's really nothing wrong with that; Finnegans Wake is probably much less "useful" to society than Uncle Tom's Cabin but it's a damn fine book). So now that, as reasonable adults, we have agreed that taste is subjective, let's set up some qualities to strive toward. If you're lost in all this postmodern formlessness, just seek beauty. Transcendent beauty is great because all the mind-wringing metatextuality in the world won't affect the soul (or whatever the fuck). We're all going to die one day and if you spend your limited time alive consuming inaccessible art you can't enjoy and can't understand and probably don't even want to understand, you've likely wasted that time. So make, and consume, stuff you like. And, as art is often communal, try to make things others can enjoy. It's lonely otherwise.