(untitled)

Hi all, I found an interesting YouTube video on pop music. The presenter puts forward the argument that pop music has, in fact, been getting steadily worse. He cites a study (I haven't read it) that points out that music and lyrics have been getting steadily simpler and more formulaic. He lays this at the feet of the music industry, claiming that, rather than risk money on developing unique talent, the industry has been steadily creating more formulaic product and then forcing this product to be popular rather than letting consumers choose on their own. His argument is that it is more effective and profitable to do this than develop unique talent. The link is below. I'm curious to know what everyone thinks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII

I recall hearing this from industry professionals around 2010+ One of the things that I can recall hearing (though I dont remember the specifics) was that Ke$ha (who is actually very intelligent despite what her professional persona may suggest) objected to singing a song about "dying young" after a school shooting, saying >in a separate tweet, Kesha confessed that she had no control over the lyrical content of the song and was forced to sing it. Despite being credited as a songwriter on the track, she did not contribute to the chorus lyrically, as this part was written by Nate Ruess,[37][38] although she reaffirmed that she fully resonated with the song's message;[38][39] the tweet verifying this was later deleted there are also only a handful of songwriters for most major "pop singers" which explains why there are so many similarities and every song sounds the same. Take a proven product that sells, and reproduce it until it no longer sells. that is also how other song trends come and go, one thing I have notices lately is a progressive transition from the happy pop sounding "party music" of the 2010s to a more rap/r&b style mixed with electro/house or on the other end of the spectrum, everybody wants to do EDM (though that may just be residual of a phase a few years ago) dont forget that there is an entire industry based on advertising certain celebrities, which means that they have certain criteria to promote (which causes them all to be very similar). even Tswift and Katy P have started to move from the genres that they started off. Note that the absolute differences are not too far from one another, and the lyrics are just as pointless as they were. fringe record labels usually have some good stuff, but it ends up not being popular, so talent hardly gets developed, IIRC Lady GAGA was one of the few who started off on a gamble and ended up making it, but she also moved into a more mainstream style of music, as did Adele (who ended up becoming a hypocrite "be yourself, dont let anybody change you" *changes to generic singer number 11234*)

pop singers are basically treated the same as adult actresses in the porn industry

>>2735 >there are also only a handful of songwriters for most major "pop singers" which explains why there are so many similarities and every song sounds the same. Not only songwriters, mixing/mastering engineers and especially producers are more or less the same in every song. I think producers are the most important here, they are responsible for the "creative" direction and actively follow and predict potential new trends and incorporate them into the songs in an attempt to stay relevant. On the "top levels" of the game it's not any different from other forms of commercial industry. You have people who create the product (producers, songwriters, audio engineers), the artist is simply a brand that is used to project a mental image towards the consumer about the product, then that product is marketed for the target audience.

Funny story: the 2018 American Music Awards were last night and tonight I had string ensemble practice. One of the girls in the ensemble is this 14 year old prodigy. We were talking about the AMAs and she throws her head back and says "Ugh! I'm SO disappointed in the music of this generation!" We all start laughing as say "You're IN this generation!" She responds with "NOOOO!" She's big into 60s music. Go figure.

>>2733 This resonates with me very strongly. My greatest interest throughout my life has been studying the movements in electronic music, where they originate from, and how they have traveled through different regions in the world and transformed. This is exciting because it occurs in the present time at a very fast rate, and now global cultural movements reside on the internet, the wired which I have given my life to. I see many aspects in pop music from isolated artists or circles. If desired I can go on more about this.

Just say no to mediocre entertainment.

Tired. Not worth a thread. also underage

>>2753 >She's big into 60s music. Go figure. Which is funny because every generation churned out cookie cutter formulaic music. Motown and Stax released dozens of artist singles and albums that all sounded generic and samey for every one that met with success. The whole reason Motown and Stax succeeded was because they hit on a "formula" that worked. While Whitey in the USA was reluctant to be seen stepping to nigger music, in the UK, it was much different, particularly in the North of England. A whole movement sprang up called "Northern Soul". Crate digging DJs went to New York, Detroit, Chicago and elsewhere, looking for cuts that America largely ignored, but would go on to chart in the UK. Dobie Gray released "Out On The Floor" in 1960 something and it never charted in the US. It charted at number 42 in 1975 in the UK when someone dug it up, brought it back to the UK and it became a sort of anthem for Northern Soul. However, there's absolutely nothing "stand outish" about it that would make you consider it a "classic" of the Soul genre. The Fascinations – Girls Are Out to Get You. Martha Reeves before she was on Motown. Donny Hathaway before he offed himself. And Curtis fuarrrking Mayfield. Made no impact in the US. Until it was once again picked up by a British subsidiary of Polydor (Mojo Records) and re-released in the early 1970s, where it made it into the Top 40 in the UK. The Fascinations were already broken up by that point and actually reformed to do some live performances in the UK. But again, there is nothing particularly stand outish about that particular track. It's generic. Formulaic. But that's what made it a floor filler for the Northern Soul clubs and what drove it to popularity in the UK. When it came to pop of the 60s, everybody sounded the same until the Beatles decided to go and eat acid. Then everyone else did too and prog rock came along and then nobody sounded like anybody else because everybody was fuarrrked up on acid. And for every acid induced song that succeeded, there were dozens of pieces of soykaf that nobody remembers. This idea that "music was better back then" is horse soykaf. It's selective memory. Like people bitching about how bad the lyrics are to "All the single ladies" seem to forget that the 60s provided The Trashmen - The bird is the word or The Archies - Sugar Sugar or Ohio Express - Yummy yummy yummy. soykafe, repetitive lyrics and formulaic music, but somehow because they were released in the 60s they're better than All the single ladies? They're not. They're the same soykaf for a different generation. Asking what's wrong with X generations soykaf music and then going on to listen to Y generations soykaf music is peak "le wrong generation". Because you're still going to be listening to soykaf music at the end of the day.

>>2733 >"surely if a song is a truly great song you wouldn't need to force yourself to love it... you would just like it the first time you heard it" this guy is an idiot. this quote tells me that his idea of "good music" is banal pop music from a few decades ago which he feels is better than banal pop music today. people like this just need to broaden their horizons. we haven't even reached the high water mark for experimental electronic music yet. the amount of boundary-pushing music today is staggering. it's gotten to a point that the experimentalists of the early 20th century could not have dreamed of. i'm not just talking about experimentation for its own sake either. over the past century, the very foundations of music theory and the philosophy of music have been continually expanding and changing in an unprecedented way. if you're going to ignore all this and focus on music that's explicitly made for people who don't care that much about music, then i dont know what to tell you.

>>2762 I think there's a good point to be had here. When a time period has ended, we only remember the good parts of it and gradually forget the bad parts that really HAD to exist in order to define the good parts as good. Mozart and Salieri were both recognized composers, but it's Mozart everyone remembers because he was so head-and-shoulders above everyone else. Same with Shakespeare. I've read Ben Jonson's "Tragedie of Doctor Faustus". While it's good, it just doesn't compare to Shakespeare's works. In both cases there were tons of bad musicians and writers in their respective time periods, but we've forgotten about them. When the girl threw her head back and decried the state of music today, she didn't understand that she's in the midst of the current time period with all of its beauty and ugliness. In time people will look back and see only the good parts and the whole issue of "it was better back then" will start all over again. Rose-colored glasses and all that.

>>2733 > the industry has been steadily creating more formulaic product and then forcing this product to be popular rather than letting consumers choose on their own. His argument is that it is more effective and profitable to do this than develop unique talent. There is some truth to this IMO, but i would be very hesitant to draw those kinds of conclusions from it. 'telling people what they like' is called advertising, and the music industry has been doing more and more of it over the years (peaking, by my estimation, in the early 2000s). Thing is, it isn't just record execs standing around saying "what's the cheapest music we can make" and then promoting the fuarrrk out of it. The record companies are following trends, and in doing so are creating new trends. This feedback loop is fundamental to the way society works. Culture is chaotic.

>>2763 Is experimental electronic really part of the pop genre of music? I think there's a lot of interesting stuff outside of the commercial pop scene, but I sense the video is speaking specifically about the commercial mainstream pop genre itself, not anything outside of that.

>>2762 there was a conversation a few people I work with were having, where they were debating the best era of music... somebody brought up the Beatles, and asked me if I knew who they were (since nobody really knows what kind of music I listen too) and I said "yeah, they were basically the jonas brothers of their time" and everybody had to admit though unsavory a statement, it was not untrue. >>2763 >we haven't even reached the high water mark for experimental electronic music yet. throwing sounds together does not make a "high mark" for anything. although the variety may increase, mastery will not necessarily. quantity =/= quality, and there is overwhelming quantity, but I have found actual interesting music increasingly difficult to find. at this point, I foresee a future where someone could write code taking snippets of the most listened to songs, splice them together, and produce a great number of "hit singles" as is already being done with clothing design. Unlike electronic musicians in the 80s and 90s (who also had a similar style) computers just allow a lot more freedom of musical implementation and access to music production, creating the meme that "anybody can be a super-duper techno artist" which is not the case, though many more will try (and produce low quality "music")

fuarrrk off Forty2 You ever listen to doo-wop? Incredibly formulaic. Everything new is worse than the old soykaf für ewigkeit

>>2766 >I sense the video is speaking specifically about the commercial mainstream pop genre itself well the title is "why modern music is awful" and the guy was conflating "art" and "popular" music throughout the video. i take your point, but i still think pointing out the boundary-pushing music that's out there today is a valid counterpoint. >>2771 >throwing sounds together does not make a "high mark" for anything you think electronic music is getting worse? i completely disagree. i'm not talking about candy raver bullsoykaf or brostep, i'm talking about the cutting edge of electronic music in the 80s vs. today. what people have managed to do in that time is pretty amazing. >computers just allow a lot more freedom of musical implementation and access to music production, creating the meme that "anybody can be a super-duper techno artist" also creating a hell of a lot more options for synthesis. but it isn't just the tech. we have pushed back the frontiers of music theory as well. look, you can stay in the pop ghetto if you want, but don't turn around and complain that everything is soykafty and formulaic. obviously it is. it's pop music. if you don't want that then find better music.

>>2733 I really wanted to watch this, but he opened up with The Beatles as the example of what good music should be like. Not that I don't respect them, but holy fuarrrk, what a terrible point of reference. The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art.

>>2733 >>3182 I do agree with the sentiment I'm sure the trend should eventually revert with some new generation wanting to distance themselves from their parents, the reason why many inter-generational rifts happen

>>2754 > in the present time at a very fast rate, and now global cultural movements reside on the internet, I noticed this to, and yes please, expiatiate. I noticed that with the whole vaporwave-witchhouse-darkelectro-retrofuturistic thing, and how it took with that "better old times" line of thought that led to fashwave and the general conservative-fascist-80's-vapor merge

>>2733 OP, it really depends on what is meant by "worse". Tantacrul created a response video to Thoughty2 that examines the study from a music theory perspective. Tantacrul is a professional composer and he has some interesting comments about the methodology and criteria of the study. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfNdps0daF8 One point that really stuck out to me is that music can be simpler, but still interesting. Say for example I play a basic phrase like a I,IV,V progression, but I only play the I, and the IV. I know this will create tension because we are conditioned by popular music to expect some kind of resolution. Even thought the piece is "simpler" than the I,IV,V it is more interesting.

>>3182 I pissed some people off by saying the beatles were the jonas brothers of their era... also video VERY related, hilarious rant about pop music (both old and new) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2yvK_huqM

>>3184 >I noticed that with the whole vaporwave-witchhouse-darkelectro-retrofuturistic thing, and how it took with that "better old times" line of thought that led to fashwave and the general conservative-fascist-80's-vapor merge This is wrong, Vaporwave got consciously co-opted by fashy types, because stealing popular leftist imagery (The core of vaporwave is a critique of 80's, 90's and internet nostalgia via punk methods) is what fascists do to try to recruit more fascists, and it works well for them, they had you didn't they?

>>3378 sage for clarifying. I say they had you, but I assume only in the sense that you missed the fact the it was intentionally taken, because this is the sort of thing they like, not that you're a fascist, I don't want to accidentally imply that. And there definitely is/was a particular weakness of the vapor-scene in the fact that it focused on nostalgia, and the critique might have gone over heads, or after a generation might have turned into sincere nostalgic worship of a time that only existed in their head (Imagine Diana Ross singing "It's all in you're head" slowed down), something fashy types are very adept at manipulating.

>>3378 >>3379 THANK YOU! this is what I keep arguing, that gnatsis co-opt everything and then rewrite the history books to say it was always theirs. But people don't believe me when I tell them skinheads weren't racist to begin with, and Nietzsche hated fascists.

>>3384 > skinheads weren't racist to begin with ...or even all white.

Gentle reminder that this is /music/ and not /r/ or /hum/. Please try to stay on-topic in relation to the OP and talk about the music, not the politics; and/or the impact of the politics on the music.