I believe that even the most highly-regarded songwriters would not be considered writing better songs today than they did 20 years ago. All the greats relied on a few trademarks, and like everything, they are running thin. The novelty wears off, and I don't think we will find many who think that Desmond Child writes better songs today.

In a way, all writers can become prisoner of his/her own cliches.

The average listener like me will not have the necessary musical knowledge to assess the cleverness behind certain songwriting skills. What we hear is what we judge by saying "do I like it or not". By that token, there are probably songwriting jewels written back in the day that to my ears sound like fillers. A good example is Toto: I cannot stand any of their ballads. They are syrupy, mellow with lame lyrics. That is my opinion as a listener (I love their rocking songs, and do not put "Rosanna" and "Africa" in the ballad category). Do they include musical ideas, use of certain technic or I don't know why that can make a professional think "this is underwriting genius"?

I think we might be a bit harsh on today's songwriters. And although I do not relate to many, with hindsight, I can hear that even the classics were filled with fillers. It was definitively not all amazing songwriting throughout.

I think that the emotional bond we have with certain songs or a period of time, cannot be topped. Therefore regardless of the quality we hear today, it will never sound as good or as fresh.

I would like to try to understand how you assess, as a professional musician, great songwriting skills?