I've had this debate with a friend recently with the simple questions being - how many bands that have sprung up in say the past 5-10 years will truly be remembered the way we idolize say 80's metal/rock or even some 70's music? Will there be a version of classic rock radio that plays even a small percentage of whats been released in the last decade in these media outlets (be they either over air or on the internet or satellite radio) as much as we hear the staples of the classic rock period or metal period of the 60's,70's, and 80's or will those classics still make up the majority of that format? Will the artists that make somewhat of a name for themselves 20 years from now still be using the old tried and true "who were your influences" answer of Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Priest, Zeppelin, Purple, ...
Overall it's really summed up with the question:
"Have we reached the point of over saturation where anyone can release music easily so the bright light that tends shines on true greatness has a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff as the saying goes?"
There was a time when people in the industry acted as a filter all the way up the line from individual artists to the executives at labels and all positions in-between (mixers, producers, A&R guys, ...) - you had to have something somewhat original or a level of talent to hopefully succeed with a mass audience. You had to build a fan base that would attend your shows not just like you on Facebook (given that record sales keep decreasing and touring and merchandising plays such a critical role in a bands success financially these days - asses in seats might even have more meaning now). It's getting tougher to tell if your music and live show will actually result in profits for those willing to make an investment in your future even if the music seems critically well received by your fans. How many bands, as a ratio to actual number of current releases, actually build up a base large enough to support them for even a small amount of time.
I could argue both sides of this argument, siding with the more is better approach - let the music listening audience sort out the winners and losers; that the easy ability to get your music out there has been a boon to new and original music; that the little guy has a chance, if even small, to be the next big thing (my only question is for how long as in our reality TV world these days fame seems less talent driven than ever). I may even fall into this camp of thought on a general level but I'm still stuck with the feeling that the era of true classics that are generational may be coming to an end as far as lasting appeal. Trust me, as a glass is half full guy, I hate thinking this - I love discovering new music, I love supporting artists I enjoy - the problem being lately I seem to support mostly previously found favorites.
I have a streaming audio account with MOG that I use to "screen" potential purchases with - I can only assume the majority of music lovers here actually don't buy most music without some sort of preview these days either online (YouTube in many cases being one of the easiest to get an early feel for a new artist or release). While I try to listen to almost every new release I have a passing interest in, the actual money I plunk down on buying a CD these days tend to be artists I've already established a relationship with whereas in the past I would buy albums site unseen (or un-listened as the case may be) and take the risk because it looked interesting, or I knew the quality of previous releases, the glut of sound same, trend of the day, music has made me wary of un-previewed artists. I still buy say 4-7 CDs a month and attend shows from bands I like that come to my region so I do support the bands I've grown to like, but truth be told I've probably become more selective because of this quantity over quality ease of releasing music.
Another side question related to the overall subject - how many bands that you make a financial investment in say through CD sales, MP3 purchases, attending shows, do you really think have a shot at lasting popularity (especially given that metal already has a much smaller base than many popular forms of music)? Does this impact whether you actually make the investment you might have made in the past?
My last thought - while a band can have a cult following these days, without the record sales of the past, many with an inability to break out touring outside their region or small venue gigs, what is the likely hood of lasting popularity on a larger format these days. There are things that were good and bad to the old filter that existed to music releases and successful bands if even on a genre specific format - please feel free to share your thoughts.
I know as usual it's my long responses to what seemed like a simple question - I've not stopped listening to new metal/rock, but I readily admit that I'm of the mindset that it's harder and harder to find something I consider original and what I consider of lasting appeal. Even taking the musical creative side out of it, the artistic portion - the production side has perhaps become harder to find originality in the sound of music these days as many of the albums listed as ground breaking productions seem to be of the past. We have a collection of great engineers and producers frequently referenced and sought out here for information from/on, and perhaps many will still be mentioned years and years from now, hopefully some of our members will work their way into that level of play and demand that level of desire to work with - only time will tell.
I know - never a short answer from me and as always individual mileage may vary - these are just my random musings on the subject at hand with a few other thoughts thrown in for conversation.