I recently watched 👉
this video from
Rick Beato - a mostly brilliant person to follow on topics related to music in general, and rock music in particular. He's clever, a great narrator, and a very polite and nice interviewer - at least when you're interested in detailed musical stories from behind the curtain, e.g. stories about how a specific artist came up with something out of the ordinary, what made he/her think of this or that, and so forth. In recent years, Rick has experienced a hard battle (to put it mildly) with big record labels, who think it's appropriate to suppress influencers and youtubers who makes a small living on presenting and discussing their interest in music and / or to review music, i.e. to explicitly speak their own minds about music. It's absolutely horrendous to listen to the way Rick has battled with major labels who threaten with lawsuits for speaking his mind about music. This is another crazy story, you will find in his video selection - something that shares similarities with the dynamics of how politics works nowadays. Of course, one of the worst scenarios being the behaviour from the current US administration, which appears to be heavily influenced by how the media and the opposition is treated in Ru$$ia. But it basically also shows how the world is run by the wealthy few, and
"if you have a second opinion, it's not up to you to spread or utter that 'cause it could mean we'll sue you, or put you to silence. So beware!!"
In the video "The 2026 Grammys...Proof Music is Getting Worse", Rick Beato compares music made some 4 decades ago with the current nominees for the 2025 Grammy Award show. The comparison is striking, yet it doesn't tell anything about music in comparison but in fact only shows us how the interest has changed regarding popular music / artists. Back then - now when exactly was that? Say 1980s, but it basically also would apply for the two preceding decades and the succeeding one - well, back then, great musicians could actually make it to something really big, like e.g. a Grammy nomination all because of the artist's music. Now, this has all changed today, and this is why someone like Taylor Swift (my opinion) (sorry Swifties) has become such a dominant artist. Not because of her artistic productions or songwriter skills - she just fits ever so nicely on the Splotify / bApple Music / UTube platforms, and that's where original artists and great music (often) fails. The Grammy Award show is about $, or: $$$$$.$$$$.$$$. All the way from how the artist is promoted, on which platforms he/she/they succeed better, do they have a fan-base on Clik-Clok etc.? Do they understand how to sell themselves as a product, and are they willing to do whatever it takes??? The Swift-woman, she knows this very well, which is why she has become such an enormous brand. Again: not because of her skills related to either being a mindblowing instrumentalist nor a fantabulous word-Smith. Suppose, say Kate Bush hadn't had her debut as an artist in the 1970s but she had been born some 40 years later and debuted, say around 2025. Then she would have had no chance whatsoever of becoming the acclaimed artist she deservedly made it to, and mainly because she didn't like to perform in front of a live audience. Tours weren't part of her game. Instead, she really enjoyed writing, composing, arranging, and producing music, not to sell it. And more fatal in the current money men's eyes: she demanded complete control - and that's where it's really has become a no-go for an artist these days!
Let's return to Beato's premise of modern music being worse... He compares how music nowadays is being made from ripping someone else off and / or from using multiple songwriters and multiple composers in order to be able to create new music, which then basically isn't all that new 'cause much of it has been spliced and sampled to pieces. The new song is in a disguise. That's the new outfit, you could say - "the Emperor's new clothes". And that much is quite true. The thing is, it's not a question if the great music isn't around 'cause there's still an abundance of great new music being made, perhaps even more so than back then. The only REAL problem today is that you need to be able and have a desire to go out and find it 'cause the streaming services and the big labels are not interested if it's not easily profitable. And why is it that quality no longer seems to be a parameter of the music industry? All because artists have proven to be difficult to contain - difficult to direct and to do as they're being told. Despite the extreme amounts of self-released music (e.g. issued via bandcamp or Soundcloud), it's telling that approx. 100% of nominees for the *Grammy Awards are artists on major labels - i.e. artists under total control. It's... frightening.
*Held by 'THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF RECORDING ARTS & SCIENCES, INC.' [sic].
Here's some music that would've been nominated as artist of the year / album of the year if big money didn't rule:
