The danger in criticizing the "music of today" is sounding like the stereotypical old man/woman of a past generation lamenting the changes that are inevitable in the development of music genres as time passes. 

People criticized Beethoven's music, because they were used to Bach.  The evolution from the Baroque period to the Classical period to the Romantic period to the Modern period - to the period we now live in, was met with resistance. 

My complaint with the way things are today - is how people listen to music.  As I have stated before, I don't think they do.  You may think you are listening to it, but when it is a secondary function of your action - while driving, cleaning the house or walking the dog, it is impossible to give it the attention it should have.

And my argument against a lot of what is being done today, is that the so called artist is catering to that secondary function.  The John Couger Mellancamp song "This is our country" or whatever it is called, is "Small Town" - just rearanged in a couple of places.  And "Small Town" was just a variation of "Pink Houses."  So, could you really sit down and devote all of your attention to those songs?  I couldn't.

That is not to say that there isn't some hope today, in the world of popular music.  I think Radiohead is definitely a group that deserves and needs the full attention of the listener.

I guess it boils downn to this - you can't read a book - even a crappy Stephen King or John Grisham book - while doing something else.  You can't watch a movie - even a crappy Stephen King or John Grisham movie - while doing something else.  I take that back - at home on DVD, I occasionally do something else while a crappy movie is playing.

But why did it change with music - Has our collective attention span dimished that much?  Even with concerts, where one is forced to pay attention to the artist, the music is often the second feature - behind the explosions, videos playing on the big screens, or whatever else he/she/they can hide behind.

Is the day where the modern artist/composer demands attention to the work he/she has created gone?  Were people asking this 20, 50, 100 or 300 years ago?

Everyone should take time to listen to music.  I am not talking about multi-tasking - "listening" while driving, jogging, or at work.  I am talking about sitting down and focusing on a piece of music of your choice - listening to everything the composer or artist is presenting to you.  Blah  Blah Blah...

Who am I kidding - there is no chance of that happening on a wide scale ever again!  And don't get me wrong - maybe music is supposed to evolve this way.  Given all of the things going on in our so called complicated world, is there really room for sitting down and devoting an hour or two for some serious concentrated listening.  If we are talking about modern popular music, is this necessary?

I would argue that it makes no sense to have Beethoven or Brahms playing in the background in your car or cube.  In fact, I would go so far to say that those composers - or any other serious composer would rather people not listen at all if they were only going to have their music on in the background.  But then again, if we are talking classical music, I am sure the masters would have never imagined their works would be presented in such a way.

Looking ahead to the present - the days of so called popular music, the "artists" play to the medium - whereby Rascal Flats or John Mayer are perfectly content with their music playing in the background.  They - and others of their ilk, understand that the crapola they are churning out will be the backdrop to that account you have to follow up on, or that sales call you are making - or will accompany the soft swishing of the toilet brush getting up around the inside of the rim.  They encourage the use of the plunger as a faux microphone - singing along with whatever McDonald's comercial they are playing this week.

I am not a classical music snob - I prefer it, but I would have to say that in this era of popular music, performers like the Beatles probably had no intention of producing music that would be a backdrop for cleaning up dog shit.  So where am I going -

I am saying that there is a direct correlation between technology making music more accessible - but in turn making it more disposible, and the unisnpired junk that is forced on us currently.  The artists and composers - if you really want to call them that - play to medium.  The MP3 player, computer, or even radio (there must still be a few of those around).  They understand that no one listens to music - primarily - and thus compose background music.  It is truly an afterthought - and strictly to earn a living. 

I just turned 40 - and celebrated by watching my local symphony play the Brahms 1st.  It was fantastic of course (the orchestra suprised me with how well they performed).  But as the days to that dreaded day - the day my life was officially half over - approached, I did a lot of reflecting - and a lot of listening.  Mahler, Bruckner and Wagner make me, at least, realize that this world we live in is much bigger than the small world I was wallowing in.  Turns out at 40, I was still one of the younger patrons at the concert - which is really a shame.  I wonder if the people shelling out 150 bucks a ticket to go see Dave Matthews, live in as large a world as I do when I see Brahms?

Ah, well - who's to say they don't.  Who's to say the guy strumming his steering wheel to the latest Kid Rock isn't getting the same thing out of that experience, as I do when I go to my music room and put on an SACD of the Barber Tocatta Festiva (in gorgeous 5.1 High Def sound)?