Why the dearth amount of talent?

Post Reply New Topic

I've always wondered why as the years go by the quality of the arts becomes lower than the last. Is it because people only care about marketing and getting rich quick, or is it some other reason. I wonder because it seems like the people who make the ost money seem to have the least amount of talent while the most talented struggle to get even 5000 ablums sold or get a contract or get published in a magazine.

After seeing Paolini, Soulja boy (sorry if I'm offending Soulja Boy fans), and stuff on TV producing crap it convinced me the world prefers crap instead of gems, and the gems get less attention than it actually deserves. No wonder there are less classics and legends nowadays than in the past. At least Michael Jackson's one of them now.

What's your take on this?

It only seems that way.
The world is always flooded with crap that is quickly forgotten.
We had more than our share of really awful songs.
When they play the oldies, they play only the good stuff.

For example, Chuck Berry's "My Ding-A-Ling" was so popular that it kept
Elvis' "Burning Love" completely out of the number-one spot on the charts.
Has anyone under the age of 35 ever heard, or even HEARD OF "My Ding-A-Ling?"
Those of us who are old enough to remember would rather forget it.
We would rather remember and hear Elvis and other good music.

Then again, with all the corruption in the world today,
I'm having trouble understanding why no one seems to be noticing.
It really is more corrupt today, and the people are allowing it.

Where are the modern versions of Lennon, Dylan and Country Joe?
Is the music industry being controlled like the rest of the media?
Or are their minds so twisted by public education that they don't exist?
Can an entire generation of artists be brain-dead?

Tahitiii wrote:

Part of it could be nowadays they show the good stuff in the past now.

Tahitiii wrote:



I know. You realized this more than me because you're older than me, but in my childhood during the 1990's stuff was way better. I look up the episodes of my childhood favorites on You Tube and they still have that flair. I mean it has it flaws, but it was good. Now I look at the stuff today and it's crap. Most of it seemed to be rip-offs of other shows, and I think it turned bad during (oh.. let me guess) 2003. I think it's because the works have no personality in them. I look at my childhood favorites and they have that personality I still remember. Now it's like everyone's just produce stuff for the money. The artists's works have no personality, and those that do seemed to be shrouded in curtains while the ones with less talent seem to be brought up in the spotlight.

I mean, I aspire to be a writer, and I work hard to get the results not so much for the money, but because I like doing it. If these other artists are producing crap, yet they receive the most money then it won't be that much fun competing.

That's all I have to say. Sorry for the ranting.

Last edited by Batz on 08 Jul 2009, 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

the business side of art is about reaching a mainstream audience, and therefore making a profit. They will pick up books, movies and music that is accessible to the general public, and will turn out a profit, otherwise you have a Heaven's Gate scenario (wiki it).


Another possibility is that this dearth is only a perception, caused in actuality by the diversity of modern talent.

There are so many creative people out there, who have successfully published a creative work to be brought by the public, which is a rounding success on their part.

However, this does not mean that everyone can be a bestseller.

Taking novels as an example, there are millions, if not billions of books out there, of which any one person can only read a fraction. People tend to get thier attentions caught on the most publicised books, often form already sucessful authors.

Music wise, I think the diversity plays a role in the genre as well.
There are significantly more genres and subgenres of music than the larger, boarder classifications of literature.

this means that there are brilliant musicians out there, but only a select of them will achieve mass popularity, and probably only for a short time, what with the fickleness of fame.

So in other words, the talent is there, but I think you've set the bar too high, or you aren't looking in the right places.

Can you name someone who is making any kind of political or social commentary?
We had Star Trek (thinly veiled social commentary).
We had Woodstock.
We had a generation of soldiers who were so close to the brink of
mutiny that the government was forced to give up on a major war.

what do you mean, name someone? it's EVERYWHERE

Heroes, Lost, Doctor who, video games, modern art, anything satirical,


seriously, it's frickin' everywhere. I'm not going to list every single piece of social commentary in the modern world.

I have no idea who Paolini or Soulja Boy are. I listen to tons of music, watch plenty of movies, and I've never felt that there is a dearth of talent in today's arts. If you feel that way, you aren't looking in the right places.

try reading jose saramago. He's got your answer.

I'm not saying that every talented artist can make the spotlight, but I'm saying there should be more than their crappy counterparts. I mean part of the reason could be the public and media.

Then again, I could set the bar too high since i'm a very logical and critical person. I hate comedy, and with all the new comedies coming around I wouldn't go see movies. I mean, there are good shows and movies in comedy, but I can't see it , possibly because I think about it like a book. If a book has too much humor then it's plot is secondary. So maybe it's just my mindset.

As for books, I don't have a favorite author, but I like to read. So I've read good books and bad ones as well. It's just when the bad ones rake up more money than the good one that seems to irk me.

I guess it's very much the world works for me. It's just getting more corrupt. I know there's talent, but it seems like they're underestimated or not publicized more. I really want to see some new talent, but I can't because said above.

Paolini is the writer of the Inheritence Trilogy (now a cycle), the first being Eragon. It wasn't bad for his first book, but it was just unoriginal. And they seemed to explain everything to you as if you're stupid. Eldest is worse with it's verbose language and boring voice. Soulja Boy is that stupid rapper that thinks he's making music, but it's really two metal trash can lids scraping each other.

So I guess it's my mindset.

There's plenty of talent, it's just not easy to find.

Veresae wrote:

I agree with you on that one. It's really hard to find these days. I guess when the world was big talent could be in that local village. That person in the village was the most talented person in a--like what?--fifty mile radius. Now that the world shrank everyone wants to be something these days, so it's hard to find that talented person ulike back then.

Just a theory.

Before internets, I'd read or know about a group and I had to search a lot just to be able to find something by that band/person.

I'd rather say the opposite. Thanks to internets, it's now way too easy to listen to lots of bands that in my life I'd be able to hear without it. I can now easily find stuff from all over the world, japan, russia, brazil, india, europe; little bands in a garage; lots of bands on myspace; and even stay in touch with bands I love, etc.

I agree. It's far easier these days to discover new artists due to the internet. Previously you had to rely mostly on the radio, television, publications or word of mouth. These days you have the internet, with all the services on there that can facilitate finding new talent, such as Pandora, Last.fm, or in the case of movies, RottenTomatoes, or for media in general, Metacritic.

Largely the rules have changed. By the way...there is good modern music that is recognized. It is just very few people who listen to the radio realize it. Ever hear of low, the flaming lips, sonic youth, built to spill, wilco, belle and sebastian...and I can go on. Most of the good acts are either live acts like the flaming lips who rarely have hit singles, or indie acts who may pop up in a movie, but you will never hear on the radio. This is how things go. Partially because how music is marketed and distrubuted and consumed has changed. Also because major labels don't have the power or resources they once did so they concentrate on a few dance, hip hop, pop and rock acts. There is alot of great music out there, still. It is just not the stuff you will hear on the radio, its the velvet underground and nick drake effect amplified accross many artists. Both of which never sold 1000 albums when they were around, but are as influental as the biggest artists from the sixties.

Art can only be as good as it's audience's artistic perception.