Oh idk maybe it's because Australia is a country of 25 million while much bigger English speaking countries like the US, Canada, and the UK have a combined over 400 million. You're gonna get more music from the ones with more people. Canada has tried this and all you hear on the radio and see on TV is mediocre Canadian junk.
Until such time as the Government of the day, legislate a minimum percentage of Australian music being played on radio, nothing will change. US record companies are only interested in US artists, they MUST be forced to carry Australian music and promote it HEAVILY. Spotify, Apple You tube etc algorithms must be altered in Australia to be FORCED not to promote US music and artists.
Canada has long had so called "CanCon" (Canadian content) rules mandating that 20-40% of music on the radio must be written, produced, performed by a Canadian. This helped create a huge section of acts (from The Tragically Hip to The Arkells) that were "only big in Canada" but were still able to make a comfortable living doing 30-city within Canada tours. The government also provided large grants to musicians. Nowadays, because there are the largest number of Canadian artists at one time who are also some of the biggest stars globally (The Weeknd, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes) you can argue that smaller/new acts are hurt since playing songs by those big four doubly counts as filling the CanCon quota, I believe those artists wouldn't be in the position they are today without strong mandatory promotion of Canadian music and the Canadian music industry
@@kiroolioneaver8532 We used to have the same rule in Australia but the Australian Government were lobbied hard about losing the content percentage quota and they caved in.
@@kiroolioneaver8532that's an interesting observation. I've always taken the view thst the artists you've mentioned have gotten big without the help of cancon regulations (well except maybe for the arkells). And the reason we don't have more successful acts is that there aren't many an canco supports bands thst don't deserve to be supported. I.e some bands the cbc tends to highlight.
Look at how long humans have lived on earth. Compare that to how long music has been recorded. Competition from previously recorded music will continue to grow indefinitely.
the main reason CRAP music, no one wants to listen to self indulgence, my kids in their 30's wont listen to new music, rather listen to old, music usually progresses every decade or so, I have not seen a progression for 10 years, same old same old, millions of producers sitting in their bedrooms relying on really bad female songwriters , which sounds like everything else , so much for diversity.
Wrote this to another commentor on here so I'll just cut and past it lol To be fair the view that "modern music is considered crap" has been around since jazz began to replace ragtime music at the turn of the last century lol It's not that new good music isn't being made anymore; just like any other time in history, there is. it's that new songs are given the time and space to become ubiquitous and thus become a cultural pheonona in the way that previous decades songs were. The reason, for that, of course, is radio no longer has the power it once had to dictate what kind of music we had to listen to that was there even a decade an a half ago (it's no surprise that two of the most successful artists in the 2010s and going into the 2020s, Taylor Swift and Drake, broke through in the twilight of this period when people were still buying physical CDs. Now because music is so easy to access and the consumer has immediate choice, to put it simply, we are all not listening to the same music in a way we once did which means it's harder for songs to become memorable and plant their flag in the culture. People then just revert to what is familiar and what has experienced success in the past instead of venturing out to explore what new good music exists out there. To provide an example, my sibling (born on the same day, month and year as me) knew who Billie Eilish was when her song "Ocean Eyes" first came out while I had never heard an Eilish song even a year after she dropped her debut album. Similarily, they had never heard Olivia Rodrigo's hit song "good 4 u" while I had. A decade and a half ago though, the songs by Taylor Swift for example like"Love Story," were very much ubiquitious in a way that everyone had heard it. When The Weeknd perfomred at the Super Bowl, he was big (currently the number one streamed artist in the world) yet it was not like when Katy Perry performed years earlier where even people who were not fans of her knew her songs. So TLDR, it's not that there's no good music out there anymore (because, again this argument has been made for over 100 years lol) it's that, because of the way music is consumed, we can no longer point to 2019 as a collective and say "these were the songs of that year" in a way we can do with earlier decades. If you asked a group of friends to list their top albums of the past five years, there would be far less overlap then (again) say in 2008 lol
@@kiroolioneaver8532 That's not true. Today songs still become massive hits, the difference is that the platforms are different. Nowadays, songs become hits on Spotify, iTunes and TH-cam where you have songs with million views in a single day.
@@kiroolioneaver8532I would argue that the advent of computer music technology has made it simpler to put a song together without the need for talent . A lot of the canadian college radio now seems to be in or computer generated instruments with a singer who relies on an echo. Ps. I'm exagerating a little but I hope my point is getting across
@@rig4365 That is also true. But that at the same time allows people who would've been rejected by a major music label, say because they weren't traditionally beautiful or LGBTQ or English-speaking to release their own music on their own terms. It's something can cut both ways
Oh idk maybe it's because Australia is a country of 25 million while much bigger English speaking countries like the US, Canada, and the UK have a combined over 400 million. You're gonna get more music from the ones with more people. Canada has tried this and all you hear on the radio and see on TV is mediocre Canadian junk.
Until such time as the Government of the day, legislate a minimum percentage of Australian music being played on radio, nothing will change. US record companies are only interested in US artists, they MUST be forced to carry Australian music and promote it HEAVILY. Spotify, Apple You tube etc algorithms must be altered in Australia to be FORCED not to promote US music and artists.
Canada has long had so called "CanCon" (Canadian content) rules mandating that 20-40% of music on the radio must be written, produced, performed by a Canadian. This helped create a huge section of acts (from The Tragically Hip to The Arkells) that were "only big in Canada" but were still able to make a comfortable living doing 30-city within Canada tours. The government also provided large grants to musicians.
Nowadays, because there are the largest number of Canadian artists at one time who are also some of the biggest stars globally (The Weeknd, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes) you can argue that smaller/new acts are hurt since playing songs by those big four doubly counts as filling the CanCon quota, I believe those artists wouldn't be in the position they are today without strong mandatory promotion of Canadian music and the Canadian music industry
@@kiroolioneaver8532 We used to have the same rule in Australia but the Australian Government were lobbied hard about losing the content percentage quota and they caved in.
@@kiroolioneaver8532that's an interesting observation. I've always taken the view thst the artists you've mentioned have gotten big without the help of cancon regulations (well except maybe for the arkells). And the reason we don't have more successful acts is that there aren't many an canco supports bands thst don't deserve to be supported. I.e some bands the cbc tends to highlight.
Maybe bring back waltzing Matilda.
Look at how long humans have lived on earth. Compare that to how long music has been recorded. Competition from previously recorded music will continue to grow indefinitely.
tiktok is a huge influence.
All artist have to evolve there marketing and networking skills take advantage of these platforms that are stealing your bread.
It shows you that modern music is rubbish.
the main reason CRAP music, no one wants to listen to self indulgence, my kids in their 30's wont listen to new music, rather listen to old, music usually progresses every decade or so, I have not seen a progression for 10 years, same old same old, millions of producers sitting in their bedrooms relying on really bad female songwriters , which sounds like everything else , so much for diversity.
Wrote this to another commentor on here so I'll just cut and past it lol
To be fair the view that "modern music is considered crap" has been around since jazz began to replace ragtime music at the turn of the last century lol
It's not that new good music isn't being made anymore; just like any other time in history, there is. it's that new songs are given the time and space to become ubiquitous and thus become a cultural pheonona in the way that previous decades songs were. The reason, for that, of course, is radio no longer has the power it once had to dictate what kind of music we had to listen to that was there even a decade an a half ago (it's no surprise that two of the most successful artists in the 2010s and going into the 2020s, Taylor Swift and Drake, broke through in the twilight of this period when people were still buying physical CDs.
Now because music is so easy to access and the consumer has immediate choice, to put it simply, we are all not listening to the same music in a way we once did which means it's harder for songs to become memorable and plant their flag in the culture. People then just revert to what is familiar and what has experienced success in the past instead of venturing out to explore what new good music exists out there.
To provide an example, my sibling (born on the same day, month and year as me) knew who Billie Eilish was when her song "Ocean Eyes" first came out while I had never heard an Eilish song even a year after she dropped her debut album. Similarily, they had never heard Olivia Rodrigo's hit song "good 4 u" while I had. A decade and a half ago though, the songs by Taylor Swift for example like"Love Story," were very much ubiquitious in a way that everyone had heard it.
When The Weeknd perfomred at the Super Bowl, he was big (currently the number one streamed artist in the world) yet it was not like when Katy Perry performed years earlier where even people who were not fans of her knew her songs.
So TLDR, it's not that there's no good music out there anymore (because, again this argument has been made for over 100 years lol) it's that, because of the way music is consumed, we can no longer point to 2019 as a collective and say "these were the songs of that year" in a way we can do with earlier decades. If you asked a group of friends to list their top albums of the past five years, there would be far less overlap then (again) say in 2008 lol
@@kiroolioneaver8532
That's not true. Today songs still become massive hits, the difference is that the platforms are different. Nowadays, songs become hits on Spotify, iTunes and TH-cam where you have songs with million views in a single day.
@@kiroolioneaver8532I would argue that the advent of computer music technology has made it simpler to put a song together without the need for talent . A lot of the canadian college radio now seems to be in or computer generated instruments with a singer who relies on an echo. Ps. I'm exagerating a little but I hope my point is getting across
@@rig4365 That is also true. But that at the same time allows people who would've been rejected by a major music label, say because they weren't traditionally beautiful or LGBTQ or English-speaking to release their own music on their own terms. It's something can cut both ways
@@kiroolioneaver8532 fair point