I was born in 1988.

I grew up with 90ties TMF MTV an The Box.

There was a change in the 90ties: Techno, House and synthesizers.

In the the late 90 until the early 2Ks another change occurred: more layered progressive productions leading to Trance and sophisticated minimal productions with break-beats and rhythm patterns. Combined with big beats and easy hooks Dance came up.

There is still innovation though. The XX and Florence + The Machine gave me new hope. Thanks to Sachu I found Emancipator. Burial and DeWolff made me sit and listen again. What about Animals As Leaders and the reissued JDilla albums?

It is a matter of perspective and preferences. Nothing beats Clyde Stubblefield's break-beat in "Funky Drummer" for me. At the same time there is plenty of music that still is a rewarding listen. I have two conditions in general: no unbearable loudness and a sense of originality in the actual performance. The second condition is very subjective though...

I am fairly young and do not have as much experience with music before the 90s, but even then, I'm fairly clueless about the vast majority of music out there (modern included). I am probably more familiar with piano pieces from Bach and Beethoven than I am most modern bands and songs (played piano for 9 years and would like to pick it back up someday), but even my familiarity with piano pieces is rather shallow in the grand scheme of things.

Two of my favorite recent albums, Opeth's "Heritage" and Steven Wilson's "The Raven that Refused to Sing," apparently pull heavily from 60s-70s progressive rock and jazz fusion. One big complaint is that this material is just a "rehash," or "homage," but given my age and lack of familiarity with older bands, it sounds like nothing I've ever really heard before. That said, from what I've heard from bands like King Crimson, I can believe it. I am not sure how much I'd even care then, though, because both Akerfeldt and Wilson have a very distinct style of writing and playing.

I'm also a big fan of Radiohead (post "OK Computer") because they're an extremely progressive band that's all over the place sound-wise. "Kid A" came out in 2000, so you could argue Radiohead is sort of going the opposite direction of other bands.

That said, there's even something to be said about the change in metal around 2000, which is my go-to genre. A lot of American metal bands started to adopt the melodic, Gothenburg style of metal, where as a lot of bands that pioneered this style started to drift more towards nu-metal that had also been growing in popularity (in America, at least). And now it all just sound so homogenized...it's why I'm very picky about the bands I listen to. Most just really aren't that great or worth my time, I find. It's more formulaic than creative.

Opeth continues to twist my brain around like a metal band never has before (seriously, go listen to the funky breakdown towards the end of "The Lotus Eater"). "Heritage," as much as callback to the past as it is, shows that there are some bands out there that still have that true creativity and musicianship at heart. I am wondering if Radiohead will continue to surprise me, as I was not very fond of TKOL ("In Rainbows" is my favorite of theirs, though, mostly due to the variety).

I do get the sense that modern media is all about rehashing, sequels, etc. That said, I'm young and wondering if this has always been the case, and if every person at some point in their life goes through similar thoughts.

This is definitely off topic, but I'm pretty sure I finally got to the roots of why I'm so into bands like Opeth. I grew up listening to Nirvana and other rock with my older brother, and, as such, have loved rock and heavy music since I was very young. I also was introduced to piano at a young age and found I particularly liked Beethoven's work...dripping with that dark, romantic style of music. It's much more about the feel than the technicalities. On the other hand, I also liked Bach's Inventions and Kabalevksy's Sonatina Op 13 No 1 for their fast-paced fun and technicalities.

Combine my love of heavy music, sweeping/dark/romantic pieces, and fun/technical Baroque pieces (a lot of melodic metal borrows from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods), and I think one can see how Opeth wraps a lot of that into one (Opeth is about as "Beethoven" as I've heard a metal band sound, pre "Watershed" and "Heritage"). Anyway, just thought that was interesting.

BTW, that Kabalevsky piece is amazing to play. Unfortunatley, I've yet to find a great recording. Most play it too fast or too slow and without nearly enough conveyed emotion behind it. Sorry for the OT info!

Edit: Anax has a good point about profits, corporations, etc. MMM, money...

Edit 2: I also get the sense that many around my age are more interesting in listening to "fun" or ambient music than anything else. I mean, techno can be good and all, but I really don't care about "the drop" or "the beat" or "the wub wubz." It's not that these people don't have other tastes, but they gravitate towards simple, easily accessible tunes to mindlessly bob their head to where as I find myself more interested in dedicated listening sessions to a wide variety of music, some of which goes beyond the 2-minute ADD-must-switch-my-music mark. I'm not saying one is necessarily better/worse or more enjoyable, but it's probably easier to make money from my friend-type listeners than someone as picky as me...I might buy 2 or 3 albums a year, if that, and I'll wear those into the ground before I pick anything else up usually.

I think this kind of statement is made in every generation. 

The good music is still there.  You just need to know where to look.

That's true, there's much to be said about what music stands the test of time.

I think Anax hit the nail on the head.

The deregulations that came with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed big corporations to own all of the radio stations in America. As a result, radio programming across the nation became more homogenized. As a record label, why spend money organically growing a band with a development contract hoping for a return on investment half a decade down the road when you can hire Lou Pearlman to find 5 pretty singing faces and shove them down America's throat.

It's funny that this thread was spawned out of a request for hip-hop recommendations, because you can see the seismic shift beginning in the mid-90's in hip-hop. During the golden age, every single region had very developed yet distinct stylistic identity partially because locally-owned radio stations tended to play local artists. While there was a bit of cross-breeding (ie Ice Cube + Bomb Squad), you could listen to anything pre-95 and tell exactly where the group or rapper was from. Nowadays, that's not the case. Sure, part of it can be attributed to the internet and the globalization of cultural exchange in general, but much of it is because of radio airwaves of the entire country being controlled by very few people. That's when hip-hop began its declined, culminating in Puff Daddy shiny suits and jiggy Hype Williams videos of the late 90's. There was a nice backlash movement in the late-90's/early 00's when Rawkus, Def Jux, Rhymesayers became notable anti-populist movements, but popular music hasn't been the same since the early 00's.