Where is the great music?
January 19, 2006 8:57 AM   Subscribe

Have we hit a low point for music at this time in history? Or is it that the great music which is out there is just not that popular?

We have been discussing this at work and the original question posed by a friend was:

There have been unique times in history when technology, patronage and social conditions have come together to create a uniquely creative environment that produces high quality, innovative works. One might look to Paris in the 1870's or Berlin in the 1920's. My premise is that for music, one of these periods was the 1970's. Considering the quality of music today, it would seem, in general, this period is not only over, we are in a quality trough for rock, jazz and hip hop. Why and what happened or is it just me? (Major disclosure: He was a teenager in the 70's).

As the conversation expanded to more people it evolved to some extent into a discussion about whether it is just that popular music is just not that good. There is music that is hugely popular that seems to be popular only because it has been pushed through by the machine. Another thought was that the ease of access to music has made the great music that is out there get lost in the clutter?

Or are we crazy and there is lots of great music and we are nuts? Granted, a lot of this comes down to taste but there were a bunch of us with a wide variety of interests and we seemed to agree on the premise.
posted by GrumpyMonkey to Society & Culture (87 answers total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
If you look through history, most music has been crappy pop fluff. This holds true back through at least the 1500s or so.

There's plenty of new and interesting things happening in music today, and occasionally it even hits the radio.
posted by I Love Tacos at 9:01 AM on January 19, 2006


The corporations are done pandering to taste. They serve their shareholders now. It's pronounced enough for even fans of their music to notice the difference.
posted by jon_kill at 9:05 AM on January 19, 2006


Well, if you got a taste for modern classical, this guy is pretty interesting.
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:06 AM on January 19, 2006


There's lots of great music, but yes, it's not popular music.

I think most of us get our rose colored glasses snatched from our noses around our mid-twenties. Our music collections stop being added to. Nothing is good or interesting anymore, because we really can't be assed to look for what's good or interesting anymore.
posted by birdie birdington at 9:08 AM on January 19, 2006


IDM.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:09 AM on January 19, 2006


Why and what happened or is it just me? (Major disclosure: He was a teenager in the 70's)

And you hit on the answer right there, you need look no further.

You, and those in your peer group, are suffering from what is known as "kids today syndrome".
posted by malphigian at 9:10 AM on January 19, 2006


jon_kill: music has been about money for a long, long time. Haydn didn't write 104 symphonies because he was inspired, he did it for the money.
posted by I Love Tacos at 9:10 AM on January 19, 2006


I think that some of the most innovative, interesting, catchy, and just plain best music I've ever heard has been released in the last 2-3 years. However it takes a lot of work to find it, and you probably won't hear it on the radio.

I'm in my mid 30's, and I see the early 90's as one of the best eras in music (probably because I was involved in it more at that time than at any other time of my life), but there's still a lot of great stuff coming out now.
posted by sauril at 9:11 AM on January 19, 2006


What malphigian said. I couldn't quite figure out how to say it.

You always think the music from your teen years was the best ever.

And as others will probably say, there's lots of great music out there now, but it doesn't always get a lot of play.

As far as science goes though, we've definitely discovered everything. Yep. End of science as we know it.
posted by GuyZero at 9:13 AM on January 19, 2006


I never said it wasn't about money, I Love Tacos.
posted by jon_kill at 9:18 AM on January 19, 2006


Yeah, as has been said, short answer: "He was a teenager in the 70's".

Further, "we are in a quality trough for rock, jazz and hip hop".

Well, all of these genres have been around for, at the least, 25 years. Of course the highest quality work in each is in the past (possible exception of hiphop). Any worthwhile artist (by and large) is going to be operating within, or better yet, inventing a new(er) language of expression. Now we just need some folks to start doing that, and hopefully getting recognized. My money says it comes w/a new technological innovation in the next 5-10 yrs.
posted by Swampjazz! at 9:20 AM on January 19, 2006


If your co-worker is at the point where he says that music today is crap, he's old. Of course the music on the radio sucks. Time hasn't yet seperated out all the chaff. 20 years from now, there will be a radio station of all the good popular stuff from today and none of the crap.

And even more so, all the *really* good stuff is happening beneath his radar. If he's not aware of it it's because he's not in to it. The last couple years I hardly found any new music that I liked, until I started going out and looking for it again. Looking for it means meeting new people and going to new places, or spending many many hours looking around online.

The new good jazz music is merging with electronica (in many cases), and someone who's older will instantly spurn it because they have an aesthetic dislike of electronic music. That's a generational issue and not a decline-in-music issue.
posted by voidcontext at 9:23 AM on January 19, 2006


I agree that there is still lots of good music out there if you look. But I do wonder with all that's going on in the world right now, where are the Bob Dylan's of this generation?

I think the sad fact is that music is just not as important to people as it used to be.
posted by gfrobe at 9:24 AM on January 19, 2006


I think we're living the golden age of music to be honest.

The market is so huge right now. There is not a single taste in music that can not be (moderately easily) satiated.

Popular music is what it is and one can argue endlessly about its merits or lack there of.

If you want good music (whatever that means) right now the potential of finding something that you find truly fantastic is so much easier than 10-20 years ago. Maybe it's less that the nature of music itself has changed and more that the way music is distributed, consumed and regarded is what has been affected by the internet and the "modern age". Music is readily available to anyone with an internet access and it also surrounds us constantly. Just go outside and see how many different songs/styles of music you can hear without even trying.

With internet distribution and online stores that deliver to a worldwide consumer base, music has become a more global phenomenon. It's just a shame that so far it's heavily driven (in broad terms) by America and the UK when it comes to large companies promoting artist. I think the potential exists for music to finally move past the language barrier and truly become global...

That being said, I can see where you're coming from. as The Black Eyed Peas song "My Humps" is a milestone achievement in the attempt to define/create the "low point" of music.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:29 AM on January 19, 2006


we've hit a low point, at least where the popular stuff is concerned ... this is a rough cycle that's been going on in music for a good long time, since there was a mass media ...

in the early 50s, pop music was in a slump ... in the mid-50s rock and roll came along and it perked up for a few years ... by the early 60s, we were in another slump ... in 1964, things picked up again and due to the rapidly advancing recording technology of that time, a great flood of creativity burst loose for the next 10 years ... it unsettled the record business to the point where they couldn't tell what the formula was any more and were pretty much reduced to taking chances on anything that came along

we won't see anything like that again, because the technology isn't going to increase like that again ... we're not going all the way from 2 track recordings to 24 tracks or anything like it ... we're seeing refinements, but nothing revolutionary

by 1980, the stylistic ancestors of today's music were all established ... it's now just a matter of combining styles and techniques

i think that the early 90s and the early 00s were peaks of popular music, but lately, things have been in a bit of a slump ... i think a more complex and interesting style of pop will come along in a couple of years, but it won't be as obviously overwhelming as what happened in the 60s

of course, there's always someone somewhere doing something good ... but it doesn't always get played
posted by pyramid termite at 9:31 AM on January 19, 2006


I subscribe to Paste Magazine (bimonthly) and CMJ New Music Monthly Magazine; both contain CDs, and both CDs are biased towards indie music, although there's always some big label tunes. Seldom does anything on those discs make a radio playlist. The vast majority of what's on the discs is great. Paste leans towards singer-songwriter and poppier alternative rock with a smattering of blues and world music, while CMJ leans towards more general alternative rock.

I listen the hell out of those discs and am always searching out more from the artists featured.

I also used to find a lot of good new music on redseat.ca, which was folded into the Adult Eclectic station on icebergradio.com, but they've eliminated that stream.

In any case, I think there's a lot of great music out there, but little of it is on the radio or on the music video channels.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:34 AM on January 19, 2006


I've been bringing this subject up with people recently as well. A couple things keep popping in my head:

Nirvana was never my favorite band, or even close, but the second I heard 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', I knew I had to go buy the album as soon as possible. It didn't take a golden ear to realize that it was going to be a style that was going to influence music for years to come. We haven't seen anything like that in a long time.

Even the 'alt' best of 2005 lists are depressing. When Sufjan and Kanye dominate, that's a red flag (I have both of these albums. Putting the God stuff aside, which I could do without, they're good albums. They just aren't *great*).

Couldn't agree more with GrumpyMonkey. These are dark days.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:36 AM on January 19, 2006


There is plenty of good music being released right now. Even I admit this, and I'm a music snob. Perhaps your frustration can be explained by this simple axiom:

As the number of existing masterpieces increases over time, the likelihood that any of the crop of current works will be better than them decreases. That's just numbers, not esthetics.

On the other hand, I gotta say I don't have much sympathy for you if you can't find good music to listen to. It's so much easier now to find good music and get it, thanks to the internet -- imagine living in the era when your musical universe was only as wide as your AM receiver. Sure, 90% of albums suck -- ask Theodore Sturgeon about that -- but the limitations on your access to that remaining 10% are almost trivial.
posted by Hildago at 9:44 AM on January 19, 2006


Contrary to what's (apparently) popular opinion, there's a lot of great music on the radio. Most popular hip-hop is as good, if not better, than the so-called "underground stuff"--think Kanye West, Outkast, Missy Elliot, Jay-Z, Cam'ron, even 50 Cent to some extent.

Admittedly, a good deal of the stuff you hear on rock radio is pretty crappy, but the distance between the solidly good rock and the crappy rock is only 10 or 20 thousand albums sold. It's not that hard to find if you do just a little digging.

I think the question to ask yourself is this: what scale are you judging "greatness" on? If you're stuck in the 1970's, you're never going to find anything as "good" as, because nobody is making music like that anymore. The "Classic Rock" paradigm (big riffs and all) has basically been perfected by a multitude of bands 30 years ago--The Who, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, etc. No one wants to re-do that. As time changes, so do standards of greatness--it's somewhat silly to compare the Beatles to the Ramones to Radiohead because the contexts are so different. The Beatles in 2006 are a good but unoriginal retro-pop band, but in 1966 are the most revolutionary pop band on the planet.

The other thing a lot of people have to deal with is their intrinsic bias against certain kinds of music, specifically, so-called "pop" music--dance-y, youth-oriented stuff usually sung by women. The fact is, "Since U Been Gone" was one of the best songs of last year, but it gets discounted by a lot of pretentious music jocks because it was sung by a woman who won American Idol and it was mostly marketed towards young girls. Same thing with "Hollaback Girl." This phenomenon--a proclivity (usually among middle-class white guys, but not always) towards guitar-oriented, "singer/songwriter" music--has been dubbed "rockism" and there are a couple great articles about it by Sasha Frere-Jones (on Slate; Frere-Jones is now the New Yorker pop music critic) and Kalefah Sanneh, the New York Times critic. Some people allege racism, sexism and/or ageism as parts of the "rockist" aesthetic, but sometimes it's just as simple as people wanting to seem cool by disliking whatever's on the radio.

Unfortunately for people, there is a lot of good stuff on the radio. Here's the caveat: not on the east coast, for the most part. New York radio stations (with a couple exceptions) are largely influenced by payola and record labels, and especially on WXRQ (K-Rock) you're likely to hear the same shitty Nickelback songs forty times in a row. However, LA has several (almost) great stations--the original KROQ, Indie FM, etc.

One last thing--you're right about jazz. I don't think there's anyone out there claiming that jazz has produced real, honest-to-god geniuses or masterpieces in about 30 years. I don't know why.

Anyway, if it's not too much to impose, I recommend checking out the hip-hop acts I talked about above (assuming you haven't already). Most of the truly progressive and revolutionary music being made right now is being filtered through the computers of producers like the Neptunes and Timbaland. If hip-hop's not your thing, there's a ton of rock bands whose sounds even can translate to the 70's--the White Stripes, the Hold Steady--and some that don't--Radiohead, Sufjan Stevens, Arcade Fire. Keep looking, and truly keep your mind open, and you'd be surprised what you might find.
posted by maxreax at 9:44 AM on January 19, 2006


Couldn't agree more with GrumpyMonkey. These are dark days.

And I couldn't disagree more.

I've heard at least 4 bands in the last 3 years that have completely reinvigorated my love for music. They've managed to make me fall in love with music all over again and remind me what profound beauty the medium is capable of.

These bands will never be mainstream, but these personal musical revolutions are increasingly possible. They don't need to sweep the nation and the world, just you...

I mean, you all know that Backstreet Boys have sold more records than the Beatles, right? But they won't be remembered 10-20 years from now.
And I've heard that bands "bigger than Jesus" are not even possible anymore because of the way that music is distributed and how varied the playing field is now.

Instead of pining for the good old days when music was a limited forum where the "good" music stood out and sold millions of copies, the consumer has to be more active. If you can't be bothered to look for music you enjoy, then it's your fault really. The music that is on the radio is what the majority of people WANT to listen to. If that's not your taste, you have to work (not even that hard anymore) to find something that is.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:48 AM on January 19, 2006


malphigian is right. If you had said, how come it isn't as good now as in Europe at the height of the Romantic period, that'd be one thing. But music now is at least as good as it was in the 1970s. And yes, a lot of the good pop and rock music is independent.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:49 AM on January 19, 2006


The fact is, "Since U Been Gone" was one of the best songs of last year, but it gets discounted by a lot of pretentious music jocks because it was sung by a woman who won American Idol and it was mostly marketed towards young girls.

Maybe you missed the memo. That stuff gets embraced by hipsters now. They love Since U Been Gone.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:51 AM on January 19, 2006


It's just you. And everyone like you. :)

There is as much great music being made today as there ever was. In fact, I think there is more great music being made these days than in the 70s, easy; much, much more in fact.
posted by Manhasset at 9:56 AM on January 19, 2006


Oh, and FYI, I was born in 1968.
posted by Manhasset at 9:56 AM on January 19, 2006


I think music today is just as good as it was, it is just not as new to your ears. For example: Nirvana (and yes, I live in Seattle, so I can comment on this). Everyone talks about how Nirvana was the greatest thing to happen to music in the early 90's because they broke us away from 80's hair bands. The fact is, Nirvana was never very good, they were just different, and therefore unique. There are hundreds of "alternative" bands that are much better today, but since they are no longer unique, people discount them.

If you can't find good music today, than you don't know how to use the internet well (and I am not talking about DOWNLOADING music) Online forums and message boards will find music you never knew existed, and while some of it may suck, I have found some of my favorite artists this way.
posted by markblasco at 10:02 AM on January 19, 2006


Maybe you missed the memo. That stuff gets embraced by hipsters now. They love Since U Been Gone.

I meant that it's honestly a great song, not that it's a "great song" that I can be all ironic about and take to my Kill Whitey party.
posted by maxreax at 10:02 AM on January 19, 2006


This may sound like I'm bragging or showing off or something, but I'm genuinely just trying to illustrate a point.

Between my partner and I, we have many thousands of CDs, and some unknowable number of records. Of these, the overwhelming majority of albums were produced in the last fifteen years, and 60-70% of these are really fucking good, and 15% are albums/EPs that I think are fucking incredible. Desert island albums that I introduce to people whenever the opportunity arises, and that are almost always received with "where the hell can I buy this", or some similar response.

Of all of these many thousand albums and records, I would estimate that the average person on indie-friendly MeFi would maybe recognize the names of 20% of the artists.

I have a friend, who has more CDs than me, and more records than me. Every time I go to his house, he plays me something that kicks my ass, and makes me ask "where the hell can I buy this". Of all of his CDs and records, I recognize maybe 20% of the artists.

There is an overwhelming amount of mindblowing music out there. You just have to find it.
posted by Jairus at 10:04 AM on January 19, 2006


There are some really interesting thoughts here, but for me, birdie birdington has it right. When I was a teenager living in small town Ontario my only outlets to find music were MuchMusic, radio (which was not great in my neck of the woods), mall music stores and magazines. Often, I bought a CD based on hearing one song. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Now, my disposable income has to be spent on a lot more things, I don't want to waste money buying a CD for one song I like and hating the rest.

But in reality, I'm just not trying as hard to find and like the new stuff out there as I am in watching for new releases from bands of my youth. Some of that comes from "kids today" syndrome (and I'm only 27!). Listening to mainstream music today, I've said to my husband "I would have loved this stuff at 17, but it does nothing for me now." If I dug a little deeper, I'd probably find lots of new stuff I like. I can't decide if I don't have the time to find more music I like or if I really just can't be bothered. I think I can't be bothered and that scares me.
posted by melissa at 10:04 AM on January 19, 2006


I meant that it's honestly a great song, not that it's a "great song" that I can be all ironic about and take to my Kill Whitey party.

Ok mister more-authentic-than-thou. That's what everybody else seems to think, too.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:05 AM on January 19, 2006


The fact is, "Since U Been Gone" was one of the best songs of last year, but it gets discounted by a lot of pretentious music jocks because it was sung by a woman who won American Idol and it was mostly marketed towards young girls. Same thing with "Hollaback Girl."

I would disagree that either of these are facts, and I would suggest that they get discounted by a lot of people who are neither pretentious nor music jocks because they just don't like the songs or the artists or a range of unoriginal pop hook themes.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:07 AM on January 19, 2006


The new good jazz music is merging with electronica (in many cases), and someone who's older will instantly spurn it because they have an aesthetic dislike of electronic music. That's a generational issue and not a decline-in-music issue.
posted by voidcontext at 9:23 AM PST on January 19 [!]


I don't mean to be a bastard, but jazz is going nowhere. And 'electronica' is a marketing term cooked in in a board room to make crappy dance music more palpable by giving it its own section at Tower.

Most popular hip-hop is as good, if not better, than the so-called "underground stuff"--think Kanye West, Outkast, Missy Elliot, Jay-Z, Cam'ron, even 50 Cent to some extent.


This comment really hurts. Jay-Z is a joke. He's a gangster turned businessman (same thing really) who pays producers 100K a song to make it into a hit, using software algorithms. There are several underground hip hop threads in ask me to browse for true artists.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:09 AM on January 19, 2006


Well, I won't speak to Hollaback girl. Since U Been Gone is a good song. I don't know about one of the best of last year, but it was a good song. But recognizing it as such has practically become a cliche. Saying that you like Since U Been Gone doesn't make you some kind of rebel.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:10 AM on January 19, 2006


just one thing to add: you hear good music on classic rock and oldies station becuase of course they aren't going to play the bad music from a generation. Comparing the best of one generation with the popular of another isn't of any help.
posted by menace303 at 10:12 AM on January 19, 2006


I have a good portion of albums on Boomkats top 50 of 2005 and I have to say that a very large portion of them are amazing. Some of the best music I've ever heard came out last year.

I still havent heard "Since U Been Gone"
posted by atom128 at 10:13 AM on January 19, 2006


I was about to post "I'm glad this hasn't devolved into one of those 'your favorite band sucks' threads like this kind of question always does.... And then I got to TJH's post. Oh well. It was nice while it lasted.
posted by matildaben at 10:14 AM on January 19, 2006


I don't know about that menace. I'm not sure why you think that what gets played on classic rock stations is the best, rather than just the popular, while for current music it's different.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:14 AM on January 19, 2006


I have a good portion of albums on Boomkats top 50 of 2005 and I have to say that a very large portion of them are amazing.

I think Boomkat consistently produces the best year-end music lists, hands down.
posted by Jairus at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2006


get off of MTV and the radio. discover sites like last.fm and pitchfork

as mentioned, there is tons of good stuff out there these days, (ala bloc party, sufjan stevens, the national, lyrics born, audio bullys, the go find, the notwist, annimal collective, M.I.A., etc, etc, etc.)
posted by blueplasticfish at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2006


Overwhelming amount, exactly. The big issue today is that there is TOO MUCH music! Lots of great stuff, to be sure, and lots of access points to finding it. But as the number of releases goes up exponentially, the amount of chaff increases at the same rate.

I've got more unlistened-to stuff on my HD than ever, stacks of CDs, LPs, 45s to go thru...thus much of my listening is trying to make the decision "do I like this (keep) or not (skip to next track then delete / sell)" Not that I am complaining, but it is a significant change from my listening habits 10 years ago...
posted by omnidrew at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2006


Contributing to the mess, keep in mind the following:

-Teens generally have shitty taste and are satisfied with poppy crap like Nickelback and American Idol.
-Teens have more disposable income now than ever before.
-Corporate music only releases what they think will sell, and a lot of that is driven by the tasteless teens with wads of cash.

Find some non-commercial radio. College stations (despite the jokes about the incompetent DJ skills) are generally run by people who care deeply about their music and are not playing garbage just because the higher-ups demand airtime. Many college stations have some audio streams, find 'em and take a listen.

Find a small used CD shop, one with concert posters and memorabilia up all over the place (like the one run by Cusack's character in High Fidelity). Poke through the bins, talk to the staff, see what they recommend based on your tastes. Buy something you aren't familiar with and give it a shot - you're out $8 if you don't like it, and you can always sell it back.

Find good older music. I missed out on a lot of the musical innovation of the 90's - stuck in classic rock limbo for that decade. I'm now going back and filling in the gaps, discovering genres that I overlooked or wasn't exposed to, which leads me to current takes on that style of music and the new styles that grew out from there. I had no idea that I liked any of that stuff until I tried listening.

And don't be upset that you don't like something. Personally I am suspicious of people who claim to like all types of music. If you can't name at least one song, artist or genre that you absolutely detest, I immediately suspect that you're either too spineless to express an opinion, or you have zero personality.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:18 AM on January 19, 2006


Personally I am suspicious of people who claim to like all types of music.

Not to mention the fact that people who say that tend to use "all types of music" to mean "a handful of genres related to western popular music."
posted by ludwig_van at 10:20 AM on January 19, 2006


I would disagree that either of these are facts, and I would suggest that they get discounted by a lot of people who are neither pretentious nor music jocks because they just don't like the songs or the artists or a range of unoriginal pop hook themes.

Legit, and I won't bother you, except for "unoriginal pop hook themes." What does that mean? Did "I Want to Hold Your Hand" have an unoriginal pop hook theme?

This comment really hurts. Jay-Z is a joke. He's a gangster turned businessman (same thing really) who pays producers 100K a song to make it into a hit, using software algorithms. There are several underground hip hop threads in ask me to browse for true artists.

What does that mean? I don't understand why paying producers a hundred grand makes someone a "joke." Why is Jay-Z not a "true artist"? 'Cause he makes money? Is "underground hip-hop" the only "true hip-hop"?

Ok mister more-authentic-than-thou. That's what everybody else seems to think, too.

Touché.
posted by maxreax at 10:22 AM on January 19, 2006


actually, i thought that nickelback's photograph was a high point of recent pop music ... that's a good song
posted by pyramid termite at 10:22 AM on January 19, 2006


There is more music being produced than than ever before, and there is more good music being produced now than ever before. 2005 was the best year for music in living memory. So many genuinely fantastic records have been released in the last five years that I feel dizzy when I think about it. The importance of the internet in making me aware of these records cannot be overemphasised though. Many of these amazing records are being produced on CD-Rs in editions of 50-100, or on 8" lathe cut vinyl, so it's no surprise that your average teenager-in-the-70s hasn't stumbled across them, but they are there. Just go on LastFM and surf around, see what people are listening to. Not the main charts, because they'll just contain Coldplay, Green Day and Mariah Carey, but poke around and look at individuals' playlists. I know a lot about music, but a lot of people who are my musical neighbours are listening to a hell of a lot of stuff that I've never heard of. It's overwhelming. 'Music' does not just consist of what's in the charts, and it never has. If you think there's no good music out there now, you're too lazy to go and find it.
posted by nylon at 10:23 AM on January 19, 2006


The funny thing here is that, at the time, the '70s were considered to be a quality trough by the contemporary cognoscenti. I don't know what fond musical memories you and your friend have, but I'd bet they weren't that popular at the time.

The other factor is the teenager effect: you'll always have a soft spot for the crap you loved as an adolescent, but the older you get, the crappier today's crap sounds.
posted by timeistight at 10:28 AM on January 19, 2006


menace303 wrote: "just one thing to add: you hear good music on classic rock and oldies station becuase of course they aren't going to play the bad music from a generation. Comparing the best of one generation with the popular of another isn't of any help."

Meh. As a long-time listener of a station that claims to be the first in the nation to go to a classic rock format - and they have a huge, huge catalog, believe me - I can state for a fact that they seldom play the best. What they play is what they think we expect to hear. The most popular songs, but not the best. They ignore about 80 to 90% of what they have in the studio, such that hearing a band name almost gives you a 50-50 chance of guessing the song they will play. If they say "now for some Aerosmith", I can be reasonably sure they're firing up "Dream On" or "Walk This Way" when I'd much rather hear "Lord of the Thighs" or "You See Me Cryin", neither of which ever see any airtime unless they're doing one of their "play every song we have, alphabetically" bits. And these aren't obscure songs, either; just not as big in terms of chart position. You can call in and request some arcane semi-bootleg stuff, and they probably have it, and it might be fantastic - but they won't play it unless you ask. You're stuck with the same eight Seger and Skynyrd and Stones and Beatles and Who songs that you've heard so many times you just tune it out.

Time might filter out some of the crap, but there are a lot of diamonds that get tossed by the wayside in the process. Twenty years from now, the absolute best of today's music won't be getting as much airtime as the semi-good but more popular tunes.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:34 AM on January 19, 2006


There's lots of good indie rock out there. Unfortunately, "indie rock" is an impossibly broad category, and in order to find anything good, you really have to locate it on your own. It isn't exactly going to jump out at you.

As far as popular music today goes - last I checked, it was pretty much monopolized by rap, modern r&b, and bubblegum pop. If you don't like these genres, you aren't going to like 95% of what is popular right now.

The 50s, 60s, and 70s were an anomaly. I really don't understand how there was so much good music during that time, and how it was actually popular.

(and for the record, I'm in my late 20s, so the whole "kids today" thing doesn't really apply in my case)
posted by Afroblanco at 10:41 AM on January 19, 2006


I think there is a gobsmack of good music nowadays. The 80's and a good chuck imo sucked big time, but with recording technology getting cheaper more and more small artists are able to put stuff out. I produced a local music benefit album last year and even in a population of 100,000 the result was pretty darned good. Lots and lots of local stuff out there now, lots of stuff distributed via the web, many people forgoing the big label route, and that is good (again imo). Big music has complained for awhile about dropping sales, they blame pirate music, I think it is more likely a cross between sub-standard music and the fact that more and more people find them un-needed. I've a friend in the twin cities who turned down a big label offer because she didn't need/want it.
Sony recently shot itself in it's foot with the DRM debacle, which cost at least one sale from me.
posted by edgeways at 10:53 AM on January 19, 2006


I have noticed shitty cultural trends coincide with Republican administrations.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:57 AM on January 19, 2006


malphigian is right.

Yup. I was a teenager in the '60s, and—surprise!—I think the '60s were the high point of popular music. The '70s, on the other hand... Well, as timeistight said:
The funny thing here is that, at the time, the '70s were considered to be a quality trough by the contemporary cognoscenti.

Contrariwise, those who are teenagers now are going to look back on the first decade of the century as a high point. And so it goes.

Also, there's tons of great jazz being made, and I'm not talking about electronica. But you have to search it out; you're not going to just turn on the radio and have it served to you.
posted by languagehat at 11:01 AM on January 19, 2006


I have this theory that being a teenager just makes you more receptive to music/movies/culture in general. You're like a sponge at that age; you swim in it and soak it up and it becomes a part of you.

By the time you hit your 20's, you're not as receptive. Your personality isn't in flux; your hormones are balanced. You have a job and a life and no time to lie on your bed and listen to the same album by (insert The Cure, Depeche Mode, Nirvana or Bright Eyes, depending on your age) over and over again. Even music that is technically superior to the music of your teen years will never sound as sweet, because it will never mean as much.

I've made peace with the fact that a lot of the music I love is utter crap; I love it for sentimental reasons, and I'm comfortable with that. You're doing nobody any favors trying to argue that your sentimental crap is superior to mine. Let it go.
posted by junkbox at 11:04 AM on January 19, 2006


i was a teenager in the 70s ... and surprise!, i think the 60s were better

1967 was the best year for radio music i've ever heard
1991 was the 2nd best year ... the early 90s were very good
posted by pyramid termite at 11:07 AM on January 19, 2006


Most of the truly progressive and revolutionary music being made right now is being filtered through the computers of producers like the Neptunes

This is only true if enjoy music that is derogatory to women and encourages people to sell cocaine. (Anything by the Clipse and Drop It Like It's Hot come to mind.) I would point you instead to the more experimental direction of RJD2 and Zero 7. Both use hip-hop beats in unexpected ways.
posted by haqspan at 11:13 AM on January 19, 2006


I just have to step in here and say that every time I hear "Hollaback Girl," my urge to die rises ever so slightly.

Now no one had better defend "My Humps."
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:25 AM on January 19, 2006


This is only true if enjoy music that is derogatory to women and encourages people to sell cocaine. (Anything by the Clipse and Drop It Like It's Hot come to mind.) I would point you instead to the more experimental direction of RJD2 and Zero 7. Both use hip-hop beats in unexpected ways.

Pop music has been violent and misogynistic since at least Robert Johnson. Rap music didn't invent coke or sexism; the celebration of those two admittedly awful things is limited to only a certain segment of all hip-hop artists.

RJD2 and Zero 7 are talented artists, but hardly original. RJ is rehashing ideas DJ Shadow had 10 years ago, and Zero 7 is doing Air from a British point of view.
posted by maxreax at 11:39 AM on January 19, 2006


What we have is a low point in the TOP 40 and so-called popular commercial music.

Great new music is out there. You just got to find it.

My 2 favorite newer songs right now are:

1. The re-make of "Brick House" by Rob Zombie and Lionel Ritchie from the "House of 1000 Corpses" soundtrack.

2. Beth Hart - "Get Your Shit Together"

These are 2 GREAT songs that you will never hear on the radio or see on MTV.
posted by SwingingJohnson1968 at 11:49 AM on January 19, 2006


Best pop music ever made? Two words, pal: Frank Sinatra.
Kids today? Go to your rooms, will ya?
posted by unclewilly at 12:08 PM on January 19, 2006


There is a ton of new, good music to be listened to on the internet if you know where to find it. I have not bought a CD in 10 years, and have never had to use Kazaa or iTunes. On the other hand, I find it amazing to look back into recent musical history and realize how much great music is out there. I am pretty well versed in music, and I still feel like an ignoramus. Filed just under 'F', I am still getting my head around Funkadelic, Freestyle Fellowship, and Fela Kuti. That says nothing about lesser known artists I am yet to discover.
posted by jasondigitized at 12:13 PM on January 19, 2006


OK, this has prompted more conversation here.

We really didn’t want to set off a - my music is better than your music discussion. We are a little on the defensive after being painted as holed up with our 70’s records simply pining for the good ole days.
The discussion group mentioned has tastes that go everywhere. What apparently was not emphasized enough in the original post was YES we do find good music, lot’s of it (explain that Internet searchy thing again? Ha. And yes, hooray for Paste, we all subscribe too).
Some of the posts seemed to be saying there is lots of Good but we are missing the Great element. That’s along the lines of what we are getting at. Has the vocabulary of these genres been firmly established and thus limited to reinterpretation/recombination only? Has easier access to music downgraded it’s importance?

Nylon - 2005 was the best year for music in living memory? What???
posted by GrumpyMonkey at 12:17 PM on January 19, 2006


I think tastes have diverged more, thus making it more difficult for everyone to agree on what's "great." But there's lots of music being produced now that I would call great. And probably some that you would call great. But maybe we wouldn't agree on what's great. That's not exactly the music's fault and not exactly our fault.

But I think tastes diverging is in general a good thing because it allows for a greater variety in what's available. Maybe we'd all benefit from unclenching and letting go of our preconceptions of what "great" is in music and figure out why other people find certain music appealing.
posted by speicus at 12:51 PM on January 19, 2006


Take Bob Dylan, for example. I think Bob Dylan is good. Chances are you do too. So many people think Bob Dylan is good, in fact, that we figure there must be something really good about him. So we say he's "great." I don't think it's because his music is far and away better than all other music. But people agree on his goodness and elevate him to greatness in honor of that. In the highly subjective world of music people like to latch on to things everyone can agree on. These days there's less agreement. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think it's the sign of a healthy and active culture.
posted by speicus at 12:57 PM on January 19, 2006


Yeah, I find it really hard to see how anyone would think the 70s was the best period of music... but it has a lot to do with what seems new to you. If you come across it at an age when things still seem novel, you will see the connections to previous stuff but still think it is different in an 'important' way. But then stuff that builds on it and comes out later, you will think, well, really it's just recycling what came before. And therefore "your" period is the most innovative.

As a kid I thought good music was 'oldies' because the contemporary music I knew as an american child in the 80s was all crap - madonna, tiffany, etc. As a teenager I discovered the 'other side' of 80s music and thought it was brilliant, and loved that through the 90s, though I was very annoyed by the pop-izing of the so-called alternative genre - hated alanis et al. But the 'other side' was brewing again, and indie rock & post rock have filled my void as well or better than morrissey & the cure ever did. There is a lot of very cool stuff out there, especially in instrumental and experimental areas. I think we're in a fantastic age for music.

(But I never listen to music on the radio or tv. - go out to shows and find stuff online)
posted by mdn at 1:02 PM on January 19, 2006


"we've hit a low point, at least where the popular stuff is concerned."

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! God, you guys are so FUNNY! Time to google Jacque Le Cont then... (Thin White Duke). Or the Vitalic mix of Bjork's "Who is it?" Hell, even Missy's latest album was tits, and that was EVERYWHERE on the radio!

Look, people who complain about the state of music today are basically showing themselves to be ignorant of one thing: how to find new music. It takes work. Now, granted, I'm lucky enough to have it be part of my job, but here are some handy hints:
-Learn to articulate what you like and what you don't like. Like the crushing riffs and freeform groove of '70s rock? Try art collective Black Mountain, especially the song "Don't Mess Our Hearts Around," one of the best for the year. Like '80s throwbacks? See The Futureheads cover "Hounds of Love."
-Go see live music. Unless you're in fucking Peoria, and even if you are, there's probably three or four great shows every weekend just begging for your cash. If you get there in time to see an opening band, even better.
-Hi, I'm a local band. Have we met? Check out your local scene. There are a thousand million billion bands that will never get any airplay, and may never even record, and are totally awesome.
-Look abroad. Did you see that Konono post on the blue? Huh? Look further into the funk of West Africa, the dub of the Carribean, the favela blasts of baille funk in Brazil, the Japanese noise and spacerock scenes, the garage rock of Peru, or the Russian dance attack music.
-The intarweb. You may have noticed that, at least on Metafilter, there are several people with deep knowledges of current music (and often old music too). Feel free to ask them. I mean, beware that Ludwig Van loves the Beatles and Belle&Sebastian, but don't let that put you off his recommendations: just remember to filter them through his sissy pop affectation (heh. I kid). Likewise Jonmc for buttrock, cribcage for respectable jazz... And this is just Metafilter. There are millions of forums out there for every kind of music you can imagine. Try the ILMers at ilx.wh3rd.net.
-Get over the fact that the audience has fractured. No one's gonna lead a new revolution, and stop looking for a "new" whoever. There is no New Dylan. Hell, even the '60s didn't end up accomplishing all that much in real terms, so why should another singular figure step out for your lazy ass now? Dig on your own, don't count on annointed heros.
-Stop over-rating the music of your youth/the past. Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone knows the Beatles were "the best ever" (you lazy, boring bastard). But everyone remembers them, and hardly anyone remembers The Archies, the Dave Clark 5, Paul Revere and the Raiders... There was a lot of crap then too. Which generation gave us the Captain and Tennile? The Starland Vocal Band? Uriah Heep? Yeah, you, boomers. Now shut the fuck up about My Humps, because I'd rather hear that in an elevator than Muskrat Love.
Further, stop pretending that Jimi Hendrix and Creem were popular during their day-- they were on the new FM band, while Pat and Debbie Boone crooned on the AM. They were popular for a small subculture, and became popular years later.

So, in conclusion, if you think music sucks now it's your own fault, jazz and pop are still going great (thanks for asking), and the minute you complain about the general state of music as weak is when you should be shuffled off to the home.
posted by klangklangston at 1:11 PM on January 19, 2006


Specius- Written more electro pop? Still digging Distance of the Moon...
posted by klangklangston at 1:13 PM on January 19, 2006


The 50s, 60s, and 70s were an anomaly. I really don't understand how there was so much good music during that time, and how it was actually popular.

There was so much truly, truly awful music produced during those thirty years. Most of it lives on broken 45s in landfills now.
posted by desuetude at 1:46 PM on January 19, 2006


The other thing a lot of people have to deal with is their intrinsic bias against certain kinds of music, specifically, so-called "pop" music--dance-y, youth-oriented stuff usually sung by women...and it was mostly marketed towards young girls

mdn...did you mean to prove this point? Interesting that in two decades worth of "crap music" to chose from, the only artists you chose to back up your opinion ("contemporary music I knew as an american child in the 80s was all crap", "very annoyed by the pop-izing of the so-called alternative genre") were women--Madonna, Tiffany, Alanis.
posted by luneray at 1:49 PM on January 19, 2006


Rereading my post, I realize that it sounds pretty snarky. I apologize for that.
posted by luneray at 2:00 PM on January 19, 2006


another thought that someone here threw out is that yes, the Internet has made it possible to “dig in” all kinds of crates for music that was previously unavailable to us. Conversely, you can’t tell me that it also doesn’t mean that all types of crap isn’t available as well. The conversation gets harder because it is now harder to qualify what is good in a wide-ranging, relative terms context. Where we may have erred in the original post was to not distinguish between what was available on terrestrial radio and what is described by billboards and “music” critics as good popular music.
posted by GrumpyMonkey at 2:03 PM on January 19, 2006


You're old, and miss your youth.
Your favorite decade sucked.
posted by signal at 2:04 PM on January 19, 2006


I love Baroque music, an art form acknowledged by people outside living memory to be dead, so that solves the problem for me. While I'm acquainted with pop and jazz today, my relative enjoyment tends to decline from the invention of recorded sound.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help noticing when Beyonce's producer creates a riff that rips off Hoagy Carmichael.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 2:04 PM on January 19, 2006


mdn...did you mean to prove this point?
Honestly I don't get the "point" - it's not an intrinsic bias; it's a personal distaste for. I don't like cibo matto either. It's not anti-pop a priori - I like blur & bloc party - they just do it in a way that works for me.

I do tend to prefer male vocalists, but that's only a maybe a 60-40 split? I love both kims, yo la tengo, black box recorder, lali puna, stereolab, raincoats, yadda yadda yadda.

But - balance out madonna & tiffany with rick springfield and robert palmer, and alanis with pearl jam - I only mentioned the ones that seemed most central to my memory of the period (I can't remember a single song rick springfield did - I just know I found him annoying).
posted by mdn at 2:14 PM on January 19, 2006


How much do I love that 2 guys have been sitting in the next office over for 30 minutes discussing what makes great music. One was part of the original discussion here and the other just read this post and completely disagreed and felt the need to discuss what they have been listening to lately.
posted by GrumpyMonkey at 2:25 PM on January 19, 2006


I have to emphasize that music as a whole hasn't declined, but music as presented by commercial channels seems to go in cycles. Music picked up by commercial interests changes all the time...once upon a time they fed us crooners, once upon a time they fed us bubble-gum pop, once upon a time they fed us hair metal, now they feed us... well whatever the hell it is the Blackeyed Peas are doing now.

But you gotta remember that while they were feedng us Andy Williams, Miles Davis was setting fire to the underground. While they were feeding us cheesy 60s pop, a thousand psychedelic garage bands were tearing up their neighbourhoods. While they were giving us Warrant and Bon Jovi, kids in the know where slam-dancing to Minor Threat and the Dead Kennedys. And the same goes for now. If you're really concerned about it, my suggestion would be:
(a) Dive into something outside your confort zone. How about some Senegalese music?
(b) Check out the local bands - this was the revelation that really woke me up. Cool record stores probably have a section of releases and demos from local bands, and they probably get played on your college / community radio station.
(c) Raid the resources of the internet. Others have suggested music blogs. I'd add Webjay, music.download.com (the new MP3.com), and streaming net ratiostations like SomaFM or Whole Wheat Radio for something more roots.

BTW, I can't get that new Madonna song out of my head. It's the best thing she's done since Holiday.
posted by Jimbob at 2:25 PM on January 19, 2006


I'm surprised. You're aware of the "kids today" meme, you are mising a major point. For kids of any era, it is just way too un-cool (or un-hip, or un-whatever-word-the-kids-are-using-today-is) to like what your parents liked.
18th Century Father: You crazy kids with your Mozart! Give me a Handel symphony - now there was a composer!
18th Century Kid: Oh Dad...

posted by ObscureReferenceMan at 2:30 PM on January 19, 2006


The conversation gets harder because it is now harder to qualify what is good in a wide-ranging, relative terms context.

It has always been hard to qualify what is "good" in wide-ranging, relative terms. When a new album or artist appears the initial people to spread the word will be past fans or some sort of media distribution channel -- commercial or otherwise. You're looking at the 50s, 60s, and 70s with hindsight. What's the saying? Ah yeah, hindsight is 20/20.

I think the term you're looking for is critical reevaluation. There are some BEST. ALBUM. EVER. things out there that were poorly received upon initial release. There's also a lot of stuff that sold like hotcakes that only dedicated niches are into now.

If you don't like anything new, how about something old? There were other countries releasing amazing music during the 50s/60s/70s too. If absolutely no new music sounds good, then I ask you: when was the last time you changed your haircut? If the answer is high school or college, then your musical tastes probably were frozen at that point, too.
posted by mikeh at 2:35 PM on January 19, 2006


but we are missing the Great element.
I repeat. I don't think there can be one single innovator that comes along and takes music as a whole to a new level. Well, maybe it is possible but I doubt it. You're looking at music from a macro level (which, as I and others have said, doesn't really exist in the same way it did in the 50-80s), when everyone here is suggesting you drop the concept and concentrate on the micro level... There is great music being made and genres are constant playgrounds of innovation. You just need to pay attention and focus your attention to specific areas of music.

To say that "music is" this or that is rubbish. It's such a wide concept now. It means nothing to say "I like music" and saying "music is bad at the moment" is the same thing. I'm more willing to accept that "as a musical genre, jazz has not progressed since..." which you can then argue endlessly.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:26 PM on January 19, 2006


BTW, I can't get that new Madonna song out of my head. It's the best thing she's done since Holiday.

Not to confuse things anymore, but that song succeeds a lot 'cause it rocks an ABBA sample from 30 years ago.
posted by maxreax at 3:29 PM on January 19, 2006


Every generation will hate the following generation's music. This is practically a given. Note that a lot of bands making music today claim to be influenced by artists that weren't that well known in their own time (I don't recall hearing a whole lot of Velvet Underground of Gang of Four on classic rock stations, for example). Have you noticed that no one really tries to rip off the Beatles any more (except for Oasis, but that's another story)? Because there's no point; their influence was so vast that pretty much all pop music takes a little something from the Beatles. That means the real influences—the ones that make an artist sound fresh and cool—will have to come from more obscure sources, sources you probably didn't like or listen to when you were a teenager.

When the current generation grows up, has kids and starts worrying about cheating on their spouses and buying Porsches to reclaim their youth, they will be similarly dismayed to find that the music of 2020 has decided their new savior is not Radiohead or Britney Spears or Underworld, but a polka band from Wisconsin.
posted by chrominance at 3:46 PM on January 19, 2006


Hmm the point for me is not if it's better or not, but if it's sounds differnet or not.

It's the first time in history when you can listen to people singing while they are already died. It's a big deal, we al have hear "remastered CDs" of Mahalia Jackson or Coltrane, new artists having it hard nowadays.
posted by zouhair at 5:06 PM on January 19, 2006


four words: antony and the johnsons
posted by specialk420 at 5:43 PM on January 19, 2006


I'll be 37 soon, and I've been simply awash in great music of late. The trick is to work with younger people - they've got the energy to dig stuff out, though I've gotten pretty good at prowling around an ever larger pool of websites that turn up stuff I love.

IMO, the fragmentation of subcultures is the reason it's less likely you'll hear something new that's considered universally "great" through a overly-commercial channel. Doesn't mean that the stuff that really impacts you isn't out there.

For kids of any era, it is just way too un-cool (or un-hip, or un-whatever-word-the-kids-are-using-today-is) to like what your parents liked.

I'd say that's shifted a bit, at least with my generation and the following ones. Admittedly I hang out with music snobs, but I and my friends have a lot of (relatively) different music, from Mozart to Robert Johnson to Hank Williams Sr. to Sinatra to Miles Davis to Fats Domino to the Stones to the Sex Pistols to Nirvana to The Arcade Fire, etc.

Much to the bemusement of my 40-something neighbor, his 14-year-old daughter and her friends always party to Led Zep and Aerosmith, go figure....
posted by jalexei at 5:59 PM on January 19, 2006


I didn't read any of the other responses in this thread because I didn't want them to color my response.

IMHO, the question can be rephrased as "will any music from the early 2000s still be played in the 2020s and 2030s like Elvis and the Beatles are now?"

I'd say no. The 1950s and 1960s (even the early 1970s) were a time of experimentation that isn't currently being seen today. Music now is prepackaged and targeted and aimed at a narrow (read age 13-21) demographic, and that wasn't necessarily the case when rock began to take over as the predominant genre. A lesser but still significant ripple effect can be seen in the early days of MTV when the music video was still in its infancy and heavy metal could be seen back-to-back with Michael Jackson or Madonna.

IMHO, the early stages of a revolution in an art form will always be orders of magnitude more important than those that come after the revolution has reached its tipping point.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:39 PM on January 19, 2006


"I didn't read any of the other responses in this thread because I didn't want them to color my response."

Heh. Shame about that then.

"The 1950s and 1960s (even the early 1970s) were a time of experimentation that isn't currently being seen today."

Wrong. Now there's experimentation and novelty everywhere. If I had to lay money, I'd bet the next big trend would actually be cover bands that aggregate a huge slice of music history.
posted by klangklangston at 8:39 PM on January 19, 2006


For kids of any era, it is just way too un-cool (or un-hip, or un-whatever-word-the-kids-are-using-today-is) to like what your parents liked.

Nope! Sorry, not anymore.

Brian Eno, David Bowie, David Sylvian, Can, Floyd, Zeppelin, Teenage Head, Gang of Four, Devo, Daniel Lanois, Herbie Hancock, Jethro Tull, The Buzzcocks, Alan Parsons, Lou Reed, Elvis Costello, Television, The Band, Dr. John, Talking Heads, Velvet Underground, Japan...

I could go on and on. Growing up, instead of listening to the radio I relived my dad's musical evolution of taste. I guess it wasn't so cool as a 12 year old but now a lot of people my age (that are interested in music) recognize many of these artists for the great music they produced. They're still cool— especially with the the new wave rehash that's popular nowadays.

Also, jazz is not dead.
posted by Evstar at 10:43 PM on January 19, 2006


Every era had its high points and schlock. No question, the best is uncharted and must be sought out, the marketing machines are not going to push the flavorful to your door. Thanks for the thoughtful posts and everyone who offered up a lead or search methodology. We are not lazy and will follow up on your suggestions because music is still very important to us. Here’s to rediscovering the past, figuring out the present and future innovation and artistry. Cheers.
posted by GrumpyMonkey at 7:32 AM on January 20, 2006


Yup. I was a teenager in the '60s, and—surprise!—I think the '60s were the high point of popular music.

Except the 60s were quite arguably the high point of popular music. And I was a teenager in the 90s.

The "you think music from your teenage years is the best" idea only applies to people who don't know anything about music. And people who were teenagers in the 60s.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:53 AM on January 20, 2006


i think a lot of people have confused "a dull spot for popular music" for a "dull spot in music overall" ... yes, there certainly are a lot of very good bands out there today ... but what i think really matters is what stays in the mass public consciousness ... and right now, it's not that good

there was a time when the journey from the underground to the mainstream was pretty short ... it didn't take long for an innovative kind of music to get all over the airwaves

now, it's pretty rare when it happens ... that, and there's not much that hasn't been tried in one form or another ... many of the possibilities have been assimilated and explored

the next real musical revolution will be a microtonal one ... it's just about the one thing left that pop musicians haven't done much with ... but it may take a long time for that to happen

i think we're going to see more sophisticated and complex musical forms come back ... mostly because today's music couldn't get much more primitive than it is right now ... but also because the "anyone can pick up a guitar/sampler/synth and play it" kind of method has run its course ... people are going to have a sudden craving for excellence and intricate musicianship, i think

after that, some crazy kids who like 17 note scale music are going to take the scene by storm and most of their elders will say, "that isn't music - hell, they don't even tune their instruments" ...

it can't happen soon enough
posted by pyramid termite at 11:05 AM on January 21, 2006


« Older How to reset a wireless access key without...   |   How thick should this steel plate be? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.