That could be. Having said that, my theory was based on the fact that her music isn’t terribly interesting.
People still listen to Led Zeppelin, who were exceptional musicians, and Beastie Boys, who were, well, good at what they did. Both were interesting.
I had never heard that word before, but that essay you linked is spot-on - that attitude bugs the hell out of me, too. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary.
No doubt, White made that band as the lead; Bailey was a good complement
And @RickJay
Heheh, ok, I phrased that badly. Instead: Today, you don’t need to be (or even hire) a virtuoso musician to have virtuoso parts in your music.
No real disagreement in this thread. Interesting.
The old geezerdom is strong in this thread. There are tons of great musicians today. Derek Trucks is a contemporary guitar player regularly on all-time-greatest lists. Just because you don’t know them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It’s not like power chords ever required much skill. Johnny Ramone claimed to never practice because he wanted to sound raw.
To everybody claiming that music sucks today, how are you right while every previous generation who made similar complaints is wrong?
Yeah. He occasionally goes by Chris Cross.
It is apocryphal but I like the story where John Lennon was asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world and Lennon answered that Ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles. 
Because science:
Also:
This one says one guy:
Ok, but I hate the songs those guys write, and I don’t listen to those songs. I still listen to a ton of new music. The OP didn’t limit it to pop music, why should anyone else?
Plus, music isn’t science or the Olympics. It’s not something that you can successfully measure and judge whether it’s “better” because it’s more complex or faster. Such analysis of art is a fundamentally broken way of judging it.
Enjoy
I hope everyone saying “But this science thing says…” is agreeing that music in the 1970s is worse than music from 1955. 'Cause that’s what the science charts say if you’re reading it as an indictment of modern tunes.
If you’re not listening to Bill Haynes sing “The Ballad of Davey Crocket” and Pat Boone’s “Ain’t That a Shame”, can you REALLY claim to be interested in GOOD music? Science says no.
So, music is becoming simpler, lyrics are becoming simpler, musicians on pop charts rarely write their own music anymore (see below), and songs are getting shorter.
But nothing to see here right?
What does any of that have to do with whether music is good?
I submit it hinders variety and creativity. With autotune and only a handful of people writing songs and the songs getting shorter there is less creative room. Now “good” music is more what the record labels want and who they decide to promote.
I think that is bad for music. Much better to have 1000 kids across the US starting bands in their parents’ garage and dreaming new stuff up. Even if most of it sucks that churn benefits music overall than having BMG Suit #2 cast a pop star for looks who will have the music handed to them and their voice autotuned to hell and back because they can’t actually sing well. They are cast for their looks.
We can’t all match the heady days of lyrically complex and lengthy songs like the Beatles, “She Loves You”
“Everything is by these two guys!” is only true if you restrict yourself to a very limited subset of “everything”. I don’t listen to any of the artists cited in those articles. I’m familiar with them and recognize them as popular but I don’t listen to Katy Perry so I don’t give a shit who’s writing her lyrics.
This is literally the scene today with Youtube, Band Camp and other musical outlets besides Top 40 radio.
I don’t believe that the quality of a piece of music (or any art) can be reduced to single number, therefore it can’t reasonably be sorted from better to worst.
I am not saying all songs must be long and complex to be good. Far from it. I am saying taking them off the table is bad for music overall. I want the whole smorgasbord and not just a handful of choices someone else picked for me. Who would dare to make In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida today and expect it to be played on the radio and become popular?
Music is worse today because it has been diminished from what was once possible.
And I thought that the punks did away with those extravaganzas in 1977… 
Pop music (inc rock & roll) has always been like this when filtered through the radio or major labels. If you want the whole spread, you need to actually visit the whole spread, not just the dessert table. Anyone getting offended that the same guy wrote songs for Beiber, Swift and Perry isn’t visiting the whole spread.
Frank Sinatra never wrote any of his music, neither did Aretha Franklin. Nobody has simpler, shorter music than The Ramones. Are any of those bad music? Taylor Swift writes most of her music; does that make her good?