# The Death of Pop Harmony



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Hi,

it has been my observation that if you follow the History of Pop music, probably beginning in the late 70s the harmonic language has become increasingly simplistic. Older popular music often has strong influences from Jazz and Classical, featuring elaborate Chord Progressions, Chromaticism and diverse Harmonic structures such as Augmented and altered seventh chords.

Most modern Pop (that I'm aware of) on the other hand, mostly sticks to completely diatonic 4 chord-loops, often even based on exactly the same vi-IV-I-V progression. It's almost as if modern musicians stopped learning the basic theory of harmony, or even just exposing themselves to a broader variety of music, it's that limited.

I find this to be the main reason why Pop music of the last decades is so boring to listen to.
Even Rick Beato, who is himself a Pop Music Producer, acknowledged this:





So I basically wonder: Are there still any modern Pop musicians around who are harmonically inventive? Which ones do you recommend? Who are your favorites?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I remember Rick Beato getting excited over the chords in this one.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't give a thought to how much harmonic movement there is in a song, unless there is too much. Rock and roots music are not about a lot of harmonic progressions - they are about feel, simple textures, rough hewn singing, and lyrics that are saying something.

I am primarily interested in the lyrics and if the music matches the mood of the lyrics, and how well the syllables sit on the melody. If anything, I am less interested in a lot of complicated harmonic movement. So I have heard a lot of really good music in the last ten years or more.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

chipia said:


> Hi,
> 
> it has been my observation that if you follow the History of Pop music, probably beginning in the late 70s the harmonic language has become increasingly simplistic. Older popular music often has strong influences from Jazz and Classical, featuring elaborate Chord Progressions, Chromaticism and diverse Harmonic structures such as Augmented and altered seventh chords.
> 
> ...


Even if I like a lot of music that is very basic from an harmonic point of view, I am someone who loves to hear songs with interesting harmonies and yes, that's been a big problem for me and I agree with your analysis. Also, great harmony is often coupled with melodies with interesting twists so it makes it even worse.
But I think there are here and there musicians who are still able to work with chords in interesting ways.
Guinga is probably the first I can think of, altough his first album was made in the nineties, but he's considered probably the best popular brazilian composer of the last thirty years and for a good reason. Ed Motta is in love with the Steely Dan, City pop, Stevie Wonder etc and it's quite clear.
Anderson .Paak mentioned above seems to make songs with interesting harmonies.

A few other relatively recent things:





















(the funny things is that these are all examples of musicians looking back to older musicians, being them the Steely Dan, The Beach boys, samba music or the aor of the seventies)


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

chipia said:


> Hi,
> 
> it has been my observation that if you follow the History of Pop music, probably beginning in the late 70s the harmonic language has become increasingly simplistic.


The late 70s? What about the 60s? Everything has gotten way simpler since the GASB and Jobim, which was popular music in the early 60s. The Beatles were popular because they combined good songwriting with simpler, more accessible harmonies than the Jazz-based popular music their fan's parents listened to.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> Hi,
> 
> it has been my observation that if you follow the History of *Pop music*, probably beginning in *the late 70s *the harmonic language has become increasingly simplistic. Older popular music often has strong influences from Jazz and Classical, featuring elaborate Chord Progressions, Chromaticism and diverse Harmonic structures such as Augmented and altered seventh chords.
> 
> ...


Flawed premises.

Where is your definition of 'pop'?

What 'modern pop' are you aware of, and it is sufficient to make such sweeping judgements?

Why start with the 'late 70s'? Did pop not exist before then?

Which "popular music often has strong influences from Jazz and Classical, featuring elaborate Chord Progressions, Chromaticism and diverse Harmonic structures such as Augmented and altered seventh chords." Which songs, artists do you have in mind?

Finally, is this a negative thread about "the death of pop harmony" or are you seeking positive recommendations of 'pop' musicians who are harmonically inventive? In which case, the mods might be asked to change the title so as to reflect your positive intent.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Disagree that all pop harmony has gone down the drain, you're just listening to the wrong pop.

For instance, listen to this album from 2021 (especially Secrets Your Fire at 6:56 is a good example), chock full of interesting harmonies, and there are plenty more like it.






I agree that a lot of modern pop uses "simplistic" chord structures but, in terms of popular music, that has always been a thing, tracing back to Elvis or before.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> So I basically wonder: Are there still any modern Pop musicians around who are harmonically inventive? Which ones do you recommend? Who are your favorites?


The dilemma of modern rock and pop is the thematic commonplace-ness: 1-love,2-love,3-hate,4-hate,5-jealousy,6-jealousy,7-back to love again. Haven`t you find it? love is great, but a whole lot of songs on the same theme will surely surely bore and cloy. It is utterly fine to confine ones rock and pop to a few select artists. What amazes me the most about rock is the thematic depth, not just love, but more, what can it be? up to free imagination.

Harmonically, all love songs will sound a bit similar, normal, it is why people who produce so so love songs are exposed as untalented. There are still some good rock music but up to luck and search, in such innundated music market, one needs to try to seek for the music and artists that really rock you.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Having just looked at the current UK Top 40, I can see that the streaming of old Christmas songs has completely distorted the chart. It's impossible to get a sense of what 'Pop' music looks like to day, compared to the "late 70s2 referred to in the OP.

In 1979, Christmas barely figures (only 3 songs out of 40) , and Pink Floyd is number one!

https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/uk-top-40-singles-chart/19791223/750140/

In 2021, 26 of the Top 40 are Christmas songs, including Dean Martin and Brenda Lee!

https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/uk-top-40-singles-chart/


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

While there is some truth in the generalization that pop has become more harmonically simple, there's some complications when one looks at the details of the claim. One complication is that pop music has ALWAYS been more harmonically simple than genres like jazz and classical. Rock music, itself, was a simplification and hybridization of the blues, r&b, and jazz before it. Harmony has always taken a backseat to melody and hooks in terms of their importance to pop music, and to the extent that pop music made use of advance harmony it was never to the detriment of melody and hooks.

Another complication is the fact that while the kind of harmony used in pop music has been stagnant for a century or more (really even longer than our modern conception of pop music has been around), production has actually evolved a great deal. Digital technology has given people access to a greater variety of sounds and options for layering and mixing than ever before, so it's not surprising that the art of pop music has shifted away from harmony and towards production. What's funny about Beato is that he seems to be someone who recognizes this, but for whatever reason he's inclined to downplay the artistry inherent in modern production in favor of lamenting the lack of harmonic complexity... but if you're really looking for harmonic complexity why are you listening to any pop music rather than Messiaen or Ferneyhough or any number of modern/contemporary classical composers or jazz? It's a bit like complaining that McDonald's isn't serving fillet mignon.

I'm personally of the opinion that the focus on harmony among people "in-the-know" is often incredibly myopic. It often strikes me the same way as certain film reviewers who write as if nothing else matters but plot. Yes, plot (like harmony) are important, but what about cinematography, music, sound, editing, writing, acting, themes, etc.? There are many elements that go into making great films besides the plot (you will never appreciate masterpieces like Vertigo through plot-analysis alone), and the same is true of music and harmony. I've heard plenty of harmonically complex, adventurous works in pop and other genres that are awful, and I've heard many masterpieces made by looping 2-3 chords.

For those interested I'd highly recommend this 12Tone video on the same subject in which he addresses many of Beato's complaints (though I don't know if was in response to the exact video the OP posted) with some excellent historical and musicological insight:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Apparently most people contributing to this thread think of Pop as only being the music from the '50s on. The Great American Songbook, popular songs from the '20s-'60s is known both for the sophistication of its melodic and harmonic content.

Some songwriters in the '70s - the present also incorporate more advanced harmony than I-IV-V and melodies more complex than the standard Rock song, not all Pop is the same. 

That said, new styles have appeared which do not stress harmony or melody, but rhythmic complexity, and this is no less a valid approach to songwriting, or really making a record, since studio technology has also become an end in itself rather than simply the method of capturing and preserving the music on media.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Apparently most people contributing to this thread think of Pop as only being the music from the '50s on. The Great American Songbook, popular songs from the '20s-'60s is known both for the sophistication of its melodic and harmonic content.
> 
> Some songwriters in the '70s - the present also incorporate more advanced harmony than I-IV-V and melodies more complex than the standard Rock song, not all Pop is the same.
> 
> That said, new styles have appeared which do not stress harmony or melody, but rhythmic complexity, and this is no less a valid approach to songwriting, or really making a record, since studio technology has also become an end in itself rather than simply the method of capturing and preserving the music on media.


Wasn't classical music the pop music of it's day?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> Wasn't classical music the pop music of it's day?


First, what was "its day?" And second, there has always been folk music which was enjoyed by the "common folk", whereas what has come to be called Classical music has been enjoyed more by the upper classes.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

There wasn't a pop music of it's day, or at least the way we imagine it. Our modern concept of pop music depended on the recording and broadcasting industries.

If there's something to the video, I think it's probably true that the influence and "mainstreaming" of dance and electronic music (including hip-hop) has created an atmosphere where rhythm and music production can take precedence over melody or harmony. Some don't prefer this, obviously.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> First, what was "its day?" And second, there has always been folk music which was enjoyed by the "common folk", whereas what has come to be called Classical music has been enjoyed more by the upper classes.


just going by what a music teacher told me in an on line college course I took

he seemed to think classical music was adorned by the masses and that the church and the wealthy retained the services of composers to satiate this love

Was classical so restrictive that only the upper classes enjoyed it? How could it possibly have proliferated?

---------------


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> just going by what a music teacher told me in an on line college course I took
> 
> he seemed to think classical music was adorned by the masses and that the church and the wealthy retained the services of composers to satiate this love
> 
> ...


Most Classical music is an outgrowth of, first, the music of the Church, and second the music of the Court. While the "common folk" surely went to church services, probably not the same cathedrals where chant and polyphony were performed. The music of the Court was out of their ken.

The music survived because of preservation of written manuscripts. Later during the post 17th century, Classical music moved to the concert stage and wealthier middle class those who could afford the tickets and had the leisure time, attended those along with the aristocracy.

Because of this association with the upper classes, Classical music has retained the cache of being the only music "of the highest quality." Something we now know to be a myth.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

all music termed 'classical', whether in Europe, China, India, Persia, Turkey or wherever, was court music for the ruling elites - they were the only ones with the resources to employ full-time, professional musicians. As a middle class developed in Europe during the industrial revolution, the population of people who could afford to attend concerts and music training expanded


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Apparently most people contributing to this thread think of Pop as only being the music from the '50s on. The Great American Songbook, popular songs from the '20s-'60s is known both for the sophistication of its melodic and harmonic content.


In this context I do think people are using the term "pop music" to refer to popular music of the rock and roll era rather than all the music that's ever been popular. One can even use "pop music" in a narrower way to refer to a specific genre that's distinct from popular rock, hip-hop, r&b, etc. music. The term is pretty ambiguous and meaning depends on context.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In this context I do think people are using the term "pop music" to refer to popular music of the rock and roll era rather than all the music that's ever been popular. One can even use "pop music" in a narrower way to refer to a specific genre that's distinct from popular rock, hip-hop, r&b, etc. music. The term is pretty ambiguous and meaning depends on context.


I actually meant Pop Music in the broader sense, so that it also includes the Great American Songbook.
Either way, I don't think it's that relevant to my argument, although if you consider pre-50s music it becomes even more obvious how extremely simplified music has become.

A common argument is that harmony has been replaced by production, but I don't find that convincing. In my opinion in most songs the production really doesn't at all that much creative substance as people pretend.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> A common argument is that harmony has been replaced by production, but I don't find that convincing. In my opinion in most songs the production really doesn't at all that much creative substance as people pretend.


Then you are ignoring the entire genres of Hip-Hop, Art Rock, e.g. Peter Gabriel, and albums like _SMiLE_.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Some Pop that came out in 2021 that displays imaginative use of harmony, studio technology, meter, usually all three - in the creative application of the song form.


























I've just picked some songs from my playlist for 2021 (they are probably not even the best examples just the first ones I came across) - this playlist has 1451 songs - most of which exhibit the same kind of artistry since that is the only kind of music I collect.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

San Antone is right in my experience about the value of imaginitive use of technology. Production value became even more of a thing after the introduction of the DAW, I know because I witnessed the shift in emphasis at least in media music and it was no different in pop. 

Mastering outboard gear in a studio along with computer software, synths and mixing/mastering techniques is as complicated a subject as harmony itself and the best producers/engineers add their own particular creative ways and techniques. I believe that the art of production is at least an equal partner to the songwriting in pop and sometimes the emphasis is more in favour of it. Sometimes the song itself will have its genesis in an aspect of production.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I'd just add that I agree with Chipia's comments when one compares modern pop to the standards of old. Then again not only harmony, but melody too was very different in the great Tin Pan Alley standards, incorporating as they did more classical elements although there was also a formulaic aspect to many of these songs too, especially in terms of chord progression.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> The late 70s? What about the 60s? Everything has gotten way simpler since the GASB and Jobim, which was popular music in the early 60s. The Beatles were popular because they combined good songwriting with simpler, more accessible harmonies than the Jazz-based popular music their fan's parents listened to.


The 60s? What about the 50s?

Now THAT was the home to some simple 3-chord songs.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Without any supporting evidence, the claim that pop music has become simplified is meaningless.

How can one even compare "the pop music" of any preceding era with the current? Please at least point to some examples.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

What I get from this discussion is that most of you haven't listened to much popular music from the last 20 years except maybe only the most pervasive global hits, which like in every decade do not represent, usually, the best that's being written and released. 

The last thing Pop/Rock/Rap/Etc. sounds like to me is "simple." The songs are miles more advanced than anything from the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. except for some by Zappa - including the GASB tiphat: Bmv for that).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> What I get from this discussion is that most of you haven't listened to much popular music from the last 20 years except maybe only the most pervasive global hits, which like in every decade do not represent, usually, the best that's being written and released.
> 
> The last thing Pop/Rock/Rap/Etc. sounds like to me is "simple." The songs are miles more advanced than anything from the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. except for some by Zappa - including the GASB tiphat: Bmv for that).


You might say more clearly who the "you" is in your post...for the avoidance of doubt.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> You might say more clearly who the "you" is in your post...for the avoidance of doubt.


Those making the claim that Pop is simpler than in past decades. I could post dozens of examples which explode that myth, but don't want to post YT videos all day only to have them ignored.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Those making the claim that Pop is simpler than in past decades. I could post dozens of examples which explode that myth, but don't want to post YT videos all day only to have them ignored.


Thanks. It's for those making the assertion in the first place to show that, for example, Sugar Sugar by The Archies is more harmonically complex than, say, Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve. :lol:


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> Thanks. It's for those making the assertion in the first place to show that, for example, Sugar Sugar by The Archies is more harmonically complex than, say, Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve. :lol:


Sugar Sugar isn't exactly what I would call complex, but I think it has Harmonically a bit more to offer than Bittersweet Symphony. Symphony is completely based on a 4-chord E Bm D A Progression, that is looped throughout the song. These chords are also completely diatonic and use no notes outside the scale.

Sugar Sugar also uses just 4 chords D, G, A C, however they are used in a more varied way: They are not a looped progression but used in different orders, specifically between verse and chorus.

Another interesting thing is that the Chord C, that is only used at the beginning of the verse, is actually outside of the Home Key of D Major. That is because the music switches shortly to D-Mixolydian at the beginning of the verse, before returning to D-Major at the end via the Dominant A. So there is a actually a bit of Modal Interchange/Chromaticism involved, that I can't spot in Bittersweet Symphony.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> Sugar Sugar isn't exactly what I would call complex, but I think it has Harmonically a bit more to offer than Bittersweet Symphony. Symphony is completely based on a 4-chord E Bm D A Progression, that is looped throughout the song. These chords are also completely diatonic and use no notes outside the scale.
> 
> Sugar Sugar also uses just 4 chords D, G, A C, however they are used in a more varied way: They are not a looped progression but used in different orders, specifically between verse and chorus.
> 
> Another interesting thing is that the Chord C, that is only used at the beginning of the verse, is actually outside of the Home Key of D Major. That is because the music switches shortly to D-Mixolydian at the beginning of the verse, before returning to D-Major at the end via the Dominant A. So there is a actually a bit of Modal Interchange/Chromaticism involved, that I can't spot in Bittersweet Symphony.


So, I pick two songs at random, and you've taken them up to exemplify your point. I appreciate your response.

However, even if agreement could be reached here on this single comparison, it's a long way from establishing a general comparison. How could we arrive at such a comparison? With thousands of songs/instrumentals having passed through the Top Forty (itself a limiting factor) how can we possibly "score" the harmonic complexity of each and aggregate for each decade?

I can't see a valid process for making an evaluative comparison.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

chipia said:


> I actually meant Pop Music in the broader sense, so that it also includes the Great American Songbook.
> Either way, I don't think it's that relevant to my argument, although if you consider pre-50s music it becomes even more obvious how extremely simplified music has become.
> 
> A common argument is that harmony has been replaced by production, but I don't find that convincing. In my opinion in most songs the production really doesn't at all that much creative substance as people pretend.


If that's the case then I'm not sure that Beato video was the best choice to support your point since I'm fairly certain Beato is using the term "pop" in the way I described. At least I've rarely (if ever) heard him talk much about the Great American Songbook in this context but rather focuses on rock/pop from the 60s-90s vs today.

As for production, even Beato--who has become something of a poster-child for this issue--has made videos analyzing the artistry that modern production brings to music, even music he doesn't seem particularly enamored with. One example is this video: 




It's certainly fine if you don't appreciate such production, but I think to claim that it doesn't add "creative substance" is patently false. In a lot of modern pop the production accounts for a huge amount of the aesthetics in general. The above video is one example where the entire atmosphere of that song is in the production techniques. I could give a thousand examples of modern music, but perhaps the best one I can think of is an artist like Lana Del Rey where I'd say 90%+ of her appeal lies in the aesthetics created by the production techniques used on her music: 




Again, it's perfectly fine not to like the music (the aesthetic even wearies me after a few tracks, though I like her in small doses in a certain mood), but I think it's pretty clear that production is doing the heavy lifting on music like that and it shouldn't be difficult to understand why some people would be enraptured by that sound. Now, maybe you mean something else by "creative substance," but to me aesthetics is one of the major ways in which music creates substance, since aesthetics easily evoke emotional and tonal responses in listeners, and if we're going to be throwing those things out then I don't know why you're listening to music in the first place.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> What I get from this discussion is that most of you haven't listened to much popular music from the last 20 years except maybe only the most pervasive global hits, which like in every decade do not represent, usually, the best that's being written and released.
> 
> The last thing Pop/Rock/Rap/Etc. sounds like to me is "simple." The songs are miles more advanced than anything from the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. except for some by Zappa - including the GASB tiphat: Bmv for that).


I'd like to think I've heard my fair share of pop from the last 20 years, but it's impossible to hear but a tiny fraction of music being produced in any given time period, much less when you're interested in many genres across many time periods. Still, I think part of this issue comes down to how we're defining pop. It seems to me like people like Beato are using pop in a much more limited way than how you and chipia is using it. He's using it to refer to music that's actually well-known, stuff that would've appeared on Billboard charts, or now things like Spotify's Top... lists. The examples you posted are interesting (though I'm not sure I hear the "complexity" you're hearing in some of them), but none of them are what I'd call genuinely popular even though we can put them in the broader category of pop music. If someone is trying to claim there is no complexity in modern pop music while using "pop" in the broadest sense then they're almost certainly wrong and quite naive given the sheer amount of music out there; but if they're using pop in the narrower sense that someone like Beato is, to refer to--as you say--"the most pervasive global hits," then I think the claim that THAT kind of pop has gotten simpler has some merit to it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If someone is trying to claim there is no complexity in modern pop music while using "pop" in the broadest sense then they're almost certainly wrong and quite naive given the sheer amount of music out there; but if they're using pop in the narrower sense that someone like Beato is, to refer to--as you say--"the most pervasive global hits," then I think the claim that THAT kind of pop has gotten simpler has some merit to it.


Has it? Please show how such a comparison may be attempted.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Has it? Please show how such a comparison may be attempted.


It would be very difficult to do in any rigorous scientific manner, and the closest we have to something like that is the study referenced here, which so in lieu of that most of us are just relying on our experiences, memories, and intuitions, which may or may not be reliable. However, Beato has analyzed a pretty healthy sample of the most popular modern music and is frequently lamenting how they abuse the same chord progressions that have been utilized millions of times, while he's easily able to find examples from past music (that was equally popular in its time) to demonstrate greater levels of harmonic complexity. How representative either of these things are of the popular music of the time is hard to say (and the first video I posted in the thread notes the "sieve of time" effect as a kind of sampling bias); but almost any sampling would make it hard to say without, again, some exhaustive, rigorous, scientific testing, and who here is going to do that?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It would be very difficult to do in any rigorous scientific manner, and the closest we have to something like that is the study referenced here, which so in lieu of that most of us are just relying on our experiences, memories, and intuitions, which may or may not be reliable. However, Beato has analyzed a pretty healthy sample of the most popular modern music and is frequently lamenting how they abuse the same chord progressions that have been utilized millions of times, while he's easily able to find examples from past music (that was equally popular in its time) to demonstrate greater levels of harmonic complexity. How representative either of these things are of the popular music of the time is hard to say (and the first video I posted in the thread notes the "sieve of time" effect as a kind of sampling bias); but almost any sampling would make it hard to say without, again, some exhaustive, rigorous, scientific testing, and who here is going to do that?


Thanks for the article. It's useful. The problem for me is that there are far too many variables, to the extent that we simply can't show we're comparing like with like. The recording, production and distribution of music has changed. The genres of music have diversified. The artists themselves come and go. The way sales are measured has changed, and so the kinds of artists in the Top 40 in 2021 (we've barely got in to2022) are not the same kinds of artists who were in the Top 40 in 1961, or 1971...

Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity, but whether that could be used as a proxy indicator for the whole of pop (broad or narrow) is doubtful.

Some of the kinds of artists that were in the Top 40 in, say, 1979 are no longer in the Top 40 now, but they are still active and appear in other charts which aren't distorted by streaming figures. You might reasonably assert that the Top 40 has become dominated by a particular strand of pop music with limited harmonic features, but that's not the same as saying that "pop music" has become increasingly simplistic.

(BTW, having trouble finding the Million Song Dataset - can anyone else point me to it?)


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> Has it? Please show how such a comparison may be attempted.


A reddit user has actually created a very simple test measure if a song is harmonically simple:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8vu7q8

Basically, if the song contains only notes from the home key, then it's considered harmonically simple.
The poster even shows that this test applies to most Top 40 Songs, although there are exceptions like some Bruno Mars .

It's not a perfect test, but I think it's an interesting start.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Any comparison between different periods and paradigms would surely only be comparing eggs to apples. For me, having a jazz then classical background, older songs that utilise more traditional harmonic principles and techniques will always be preferred over more current tendencies, but that is a personal preference only (I am also partial to and reasonably fluent in the modern ways having had to work with for example drum loops and plug-in synths/software).

As an example of traditional, sophisticated harmony, the old classic standard 'Aint Misbehavin' along with many others, uses a form of chromatic harmony known as the diminished 7th that one rarely hears in mainstream pop today. I mention that particular chord because to me, its use, typical resolutions and sound would feel musically anachronistic in a modern pop context. This harmony, its peculiarity of many potential resolutions especially into different keys and stylistic usage pre 1950's, has lost its usefullness over several decades of pop that overall has preferred less chromaticism. 

The dim7th is then, an example of 'classically' sophisticated harmony now largely out of favour. Some modern pop artists will know of the harmony, others wont and more importantly, nor will they care. For as is the case with the 20th/21stC's more concert hall orientated efforts in music, they too have forged their own relevant ways, in their own languages, using techniques available to them. Technology and the manipulating of digital sound blocks in a computer has played a major role in the formation of their expression and has played a decisive role in the shaping of how more and more complex progressions and actual harmony have become more acceptable. Songwriting is also as much about production as it is harmonic prowess.

The ease of being able to manipulate sound in a DAW has encouraged more thoughtful artists to experiment and create new and different ways of making music - no less sophisticated musically, just different, rendering any attempt at definitive aesthetic value judgements or comparisons interesting but ultimately useless imv.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Technology and the manipulating of digital sound blocks in a computer has played a major role in the formation of their expression and has played a decisive role in the shaping of how more complex progressions and harmony have become more acceptable.


 How have "more complex progressions" become more acceptable? Most modern pop music have diatonic 4-Chord loops (lately even 2-Chord-Loops) and you have even admitted yourself that chromaticism has become rare. My impression is that "complex harmony" is less acceptable than ever today.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> A reddit user has actually created a very simple test measure if a song is harmonically simple:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8vu7q8
> ...


I don't doubt that it's possible to find ways to measure. That's not the issue. The issue is how you apply such measurement across decades of music when musical developments have not stood still.

Oh, and you're still referring to "most modern pop music" without being clear what you mean by it, and without being able to justify your generalisation.

I lost interest in the Top 40 several years ago, so I barely know what's in it without going out of my way to find out. That said, I'm still listening to "pop". We've talked past each other on this point before because our frames of reference don't match. At least, I don't think they do. I still don't know which artists fall under your definition.

The Rakes?
DeVotchka?
Bloc Party?
alt-J
Mogwai?
George Ezra?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> How have "more complex progressions" become more acceptable? Most modern pop music have diatonic 4-Chord loops (lately even 2-Chord-Loops) and you have even admitted yourself that chromaticism has become rare. My impression is that "complex harmony" is less acceptable than ever today.


It started with sampling. Audio snippets of a complete chord, often fully produced and laid out chromatically over a keybooard introduced songwriters and producers to parallelism. Sequencing encouraged pedal points of all types - rhythmic and harmonic - with which to build on. Riffs too can easily be repeated over shifting harmony, encouraging new clashes. All of these ways and more has become acceptable through ease of being able to experiment within the DAW.
Chromaticism is rarer but vertical complexity and more unusual linear progression has been readily used since the advent of the DAW.

The sophistication or complexity is different to academic 4 part harmony and to be clear, I am not talking about typical chart-topping pop music where I agree that music is often dumbed down and cliche is required to make money.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> It started with sampling. Audio snippets of a complete chord, often fully produced and laid out chromatically over a keybooard introduced songwriters and producers to parallelism. Sequencing encouraged pedal points of all types - rhythmic and harmonic - with which to build on. Riffs too can easily be repeated over shifting harmony, encouraging new clashes. All of these ways and more has become acceptable through ease of being able to experiment within the DAW.
> Chromaticism is rarer but vertical complexity and more unusual linear progression has been used since the advent of the DAW.
> 
> The sophistication or complexity is different to academic 4 part harmony but it nevertheles exists in a relative sense.


It would be nice if you could post some examples (preferably not obscure ones)


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> I don't doubt that it's possible to find ways to measure. That's not the issue. The issue is how you apply such measurement across decades of music when musical developments have not stood still.


I don't see how that's an issue. Yes, developments have not stood still, and that is in fact exactly what my and Beato's analysis is meant to prove: That the harmonic language of music has developed, but unfortunately it has developed backwards to a more simplistic form and not forwards.



Forster said:


> Oh, and you're still referring to "most modern pop music" without being clear what you mean by it, and without being able to justify your generalisation.
> 
> I lost interest in the Top 40 several years ago, so I barely know what's in it without going out of my way to find out. That said, I'm still listening to "pop". We've talked past each other on this point before because our frames of reference don't match. At least, I don't think they do. I still don't know which artists fall under your definition.
> 
> ...


When I wrote the OP I was mostly thinking about the music that is popular with the masses, but I think it also applies to most "indie music". My analysis certainly applies for the artists you've mentioned.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Thanks for the article. It's useful. The problem for me is that there are far too many variables, to the extent that we simply can't show we're comparing like with like. The recording, production and distribution of music has changed. The genres of music have diversified. The artists themselves come and go. The way sales are measured has changed, and so the kinds of artists in the Top 40 in 2021 (we've barely got in to2022) are not the same kinds of artists who were in the Top 40 in 1961, or 1971...
> 
> Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity, but whether that could be used as a proxy indicator for the whole of pop (broad or narrow) is doubtful.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree that even studies like that can be criticized on multiple fronts. Not to mention there are underlying ambiguities like how we really measure "harmonic complexity" to begin with, and how we separate objective complexity from the psychological phenomenon of something seeming complex to us because of various psychological and cultural phenomena. I certainly agree though that it's very difficult to compare like with like because of many of the differences you list, though if we're just talking about finding who were the most popular artists of any time I do think we can make some approximations through various means (sales, charts, etc.), so we can probably get close to a like-to-like if we're just talking about comparing the most popular.

I don't think the single artist method would work. Some artists change over time and others do not, and either way it doesn't mean that they will represent what's popular years after the era they were most popular in.

I do think "top 40" is mostly what people like Beato are referring to. I think anyone referring to pop music in a broader context than that probably doesn't have enough experience in the genre to say so, and I'd say this of even many very experienced pop listeners. I sometimes feel like most people have no real clue just how much music is out there right now, just how many musicians, producers, songwriters, etc. are making music and posting it on platforms like Bandcamp or YouTube and finding an audience, even if it's one that's outside the top 40. I'm constantly being introduced to new artists I had no idea about, are really obscure, but are making really interesting music that sounds nothing like most music in the top 40 (which is pretty diverse itself).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

chipia said:


> I don't see how that's an issue. Yes, developments have not stood still, and that is in fact exactly what my and Beato's analysis is meant to prove: That the harmonic language of music has developed, but unfortunately it has developed backwards to a more simplistic form and not forwards.


I think it's pure preference and bias to think that complexity is "forwards" development and simplicity "backwards." The complexity of harmony shifts back and forward along with the cultural tastes that foster a particular genre over time. Even classical music has seen shifts from simpler to complex to back again across its different eras. Plus, is something like atonality more or less complex than tonality? What about the systems of composers like Messiaen? You can see this push-pull within the very limited genre of rock music, which started with the extremely simple music of Chuck Berry and Little Richard, to the slightly greater complexity of The Beatles and their ilk, to the greater harmonic complexity of the prog rock bands of the 70s, and then, simultaneously, a development back towards the simpler origins of rock and roll with the music of punk rock, and each genre has had its various times in the spotlight. So it would be weird to think of this push-pull between harmonic simplicity/complexity in genres over time as something that's "forward" versus "backwards" unless you're just basing it on what your preferences are.

Plus, how has development "not stood still" if we're talking about the larger context of music? I mean, all popular music has always been tonal, and what new developments in tonal music have there been over the last century? How many writers of the Great American Songbook were making use of the latest advancements in atonal composition during their time as opposed to what were mostly simplifications of tonal ideas that had already existed for probably decades/centuries before in classical? I mean, isn't even music of that era already starting the "backwards" (as you call it) trend towards harmonic simplicity relative to what came before it?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> That the harmonic language of music has developed, but unfortunately it has developed backwards to a more simplistic form and not forwards.


I don't see the usefulness of only considering harmony, other than to serve a false premise. Your premise is false on two counts: 1) harmonic variety or sophistication is not a factor in every style of song 2) there is more to songs than harmony.

Not only are "simple" harmonies not a defect, in the right hands they can produce extremely good results. Blues songs use basically three harmonies, sometimes fewer, and yet these songs can be evocative and effective examples of songwriting. Often a song uses a single harmony (think Funk) but its creativity is found elsewhere, rhythmic, melodic, lyrical, and/or studio technology.

What you are leaving out of your analysis is the fact that Pop songwriters write more than a songs. They are creating records.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

chipia said:


> It would be nice if you could post some examples (preferably not obscure ones)


Clearly chart topping music is going to be generally more cliched and less complex, there are always exceptions of course. 'Millenium' by Robbie Williams is a good example of sampling (or the spirit of sampling) over loops that shows a fair degree of sophistication courtesy of the melodic strings. The riff from Britney Spears 'Toxic' is not your usual melodic fare niether.

More complex harmony and progressions are inevitably more niche in appeal. Complex chords created via digital block manipulation can be found in much acid jazz and lounge music, often accompanied with sampled riffs and drum loops and the ocassional production twists. 
Pharrell uses sampled riffs (or sample inspired use of) and the spirit of acid jazz in his 'Frontin'. The way the riff is used is also an example of a form of parallelism, stemming from digital manipulation.
'Eureka' by Jim O'Rourke below has deceptively simple harmony that gets its complicated overtones from synth pedals and is a good example of DAW produced complexity.
The Orb track displays harmonic complexity traditionally and via sequencing and probably serendipity which results in a complex web of layered timbral and harmonic sound.
Muse - 'Take a Bow' for sequenced chromaticism (with a handy harmonic tracker for a video).

Honestly though Chipia, there is so much out there that displays the qualities we are discussing and my examples will not even be the most stellar but hopefully you'll get the idea that harmonic complexity is an option in popular culture and that artists are open to new sound and are willing to push boundaries.





















Finally a link to the DAW and its impact on music and production for those who might be interested...

https://lukethines.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/the-digital-audio-workstation-and-the-change-it-gave-to-music/


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Forster said:


> Thanks for the article. It's useful. The problem for me is that there are far too many variables, to the extent that we simply can't show we're comparing like with like. The recording, production and distribution of music has changed. The genres of music have diversified. The artists themselves come and go. The way sales are measured has changed, and so the kinds of artists in the Top 40 in 2021 (we've barely got in to2022) are not the same kinds of artists who were in the Top 40 in 1961, or 1971...
> 
> *Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity,* but whether that could be used as a proxy indicator for the whole of pop (broad or narrow) is doubtful.
> 
> ...


*"Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity . . . "*

Yes, you can. I saw this and immediately thought of *Paul McCartney*, who's been releasing music regularly *since 1962*. *60 years*.

Those early songs were fairly simple, although they still would have some quirky harmonic progression that would have been considered unusual, or out-of-the-box at the time. We've all listened to how his first band's compositions developed to a sound that was ahead of its time in 1962, to a sound that was ahead of its time in 1967. Since then? McCartney has bounced between a typical pop idiom to edgy futurism the whole time.

So, that's _*one*_. Any others that have been writing songs for 60 years? Yeah, there's a few, and even more if you only go back to the 70s.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity, but whether that could be used as a proxy indicator for the whole of pop (broad or narrow) is doubtful.


This thread is based on a fallacy, i.e. Pop music has deteriorated, specifically in its usage of harmony. And I get the feeling that the OP is not open to changing his mind about the conclusion he began with. I don't think it is productive to continue trying to prove his premise wrong. He appears to re-enter the thread only to respond in the most cursory fashion and not give sufficient credence to the posts which effectively undercut his premise.

Styles change over time. Some decades songs were written one way, the next decade they were written differently. In every decade since the dawn of recorded music there are examples of songs which can demonstrate any premise: complex harmony, simple harmony, complex melodies, simple melodies, etc.

Popular music is a huge universe of styles, genres, and production technology. Any claim made about "Pop music" is false since there is no single definition of Pop music. It, like all genres of music, is not monolithic.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Yep. See my post on p1 from Dec 30th!

Chipia has form on this topic. For some reason they feel compelled to disparage pop music.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Forster said:


> ^ Yep. See my post on p1 from Dec 30th!
> 
> Chipia has form on this topic. For some reason they feel compelled to disparage pop music.


I find it vert common for folks to disparage genres they do not favor.

They generally feel their preference far superior a choice and they offer supporting verbiage which is nothing but expressed bias.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

can always cherrypick counterexamples, but harmony has declined as a feature of popular music since the GASB days, hard to argue otherwise. Of course, harmony is not the sole metric, and if you emphasize groove or production or other aspects naturally harmony becomes less important.


----------



## Opisthokont (Dec 16, 2021)

Whether or not popular music has gotten more or less complex I think one has to remember that whether complexity (or ingenuity or alien-ness) is treated as an aesthetic virtue tends to be somewhat cyclical changing with cultural tides. This is true in a lot of various forms of music and art in general, including classical and jazz. The 60s and 70s were a very different time to the early 2000s and 2010s. 

If we're talking about the most popular music in particular - it has to be receptive for what people are in the mood for - along with the fact that how and why people listen to music can change quite dramatically. Something like the widespread availability of streaming services and the ease of finding new genres of music undoubtedly has an effect on how and why music is produced. 

I don't know enough really to make the claim one way or another that pop is getting less complex in various ways, but it wouldn't be surprising to me - if you're someone who wants complex music why go to pop when you can find a hundred less popular musicians from various genres with the click of a button? Perhaps when radio was more important and before it was ridiculously easy to get any piece of music you want on the internet the situation would be quite different. But I suspect that the actual proportion of listeners that actively listen to pop as their primary musical genre is quite slim when compared to the past.

It reminds me of similar arguments that go on about film - but I think it's the same situation really: the majority of people watch film through finding whatever they want on netflix, there is no real reason to have high-concept heady blockbusters in theaters when everyone who wants to see a film like that will just find it online. It's easier than ever to find any small indie film you want.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Bwv 1080 said:


> can always cherrypick counterexamples, but harmony has declined as a feature of popular music since the GASB days, hard to argue otherwise. Of course, harmony is not the sole metric, and if you emphasize groove or production or other aspects naturally harmony becomes less important.


What is the point of looking at one aspect of Pop music, the single aspect which arguably has changed in how harmony is used? It seems obvious to me that the OP chose harmony since he could make a case that harmony in Pop songs has become less sophisticated. Just another way to attack Pop music.

In every other respect: rhythm, lyrics, melody, studio technology/production, use of flexible and/or long forms instead of the 32-bar structure, as well as instrumentation, sampling/sequencing, electronica - the Pop of today is more developed, varied, and complex, than was true for the GASB.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> can always cherrypick counterexamples, but harmony has declined as a feature of popular music since the GASB days, hard to argue otherwise. Of course, harmony is not the sole metric, and if you emphasize groove or production or other aspects naturally harmony becomes less important.


Never mind cherrypicking counterexamples - pick some examples!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianozach said:


> *"Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity . . . "*
> 
> Yes, you can.


Well, yes, of course you can. What I doubted was its value to the idea that "pop" as a whole has deteriorated.



SanAntone said:


> Any claim made about "Pop music" is false since there is no single definition of Pop music. It, like all genres of music, is not monolithic.


Precisely so.



chipia said:


> A reddit user has actually created a very simple test measure if a song is harmonically simple:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8vu7q8
> ...


Funny that the Reddit user then says, when challenged about the triteness of the method...



> I'm just trying to capture what I personally find most enjoyable about music.





chipia said:


> I don't see how that's an issue. Yes, developments have not stood still,


It's an issue because it's an uncontrolled variable in your analysis. But then, I think we're referring to different 'developments'. I didn't mean the music itself. I was referring to the industry.



chipia said:


> When I wrote the OP I was mostly thinking about the music that is popular with the masses


So you mean just the Top 40?

Of the artists I mentioned, perhaps only DeVotchka didn't "chart" (so far as my quick research tells me) - alt-J, George Ezra and Bloc Party certainly did.



chipia said:


> When I wrote the OP I was mostly thinking about the music that is popular with the masses, but I think it also applies to most "indie music". My analysis certainly applies for the artists you've mentioned.


So you're still shy of actually giving any worked examples. And the artists I've mentioned - you know their works, have analysed them and they fit your theory?

(This being the internet, you can just pretend and say 'Yes' of course.)



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I absolutely agree that even studies like that can be criticized on multiple fronts. Not to mention there are underlying ambiguities like how we really measure "harmonic complexity" to begin with, and how we separate objective complexity from the psychological phenomenon of something seeming complex to us because of various psychological and cultural phenomena. I certainly agree though that it's very difficult to compare like with like because of many of the differences you list, though if we're just talking about finding who were the most popular artists of any time I do think we can make some approximations through various means (sales, charts, etc.), so we can probably get close to a like-to-like if we're just talking about comparing the most popular.
> 
> I don't think the single artist method would work. Some artists change over time and others do not, and either way it doesn't mean that they will represent what's popular years after the era they were most popular in.
> 
> I do think "top 40" is mostly what people like Beato are referring to. I think anyone referring to pop music in a broader context than that probably doesn't have enough experience in the genre to say so, and I'd say this of even many very experienced pop listeners. I sometimes feel like most people have no real clue just how much music is out there right now, just how many musicians, producers, songwriters, etc. are making music and posting it on platforms like Bandcamp or YouTube and finding an audience, even if it's one that's outside the top 40. I'm constantly being introduced to new artists I had no idea about, are really obscure, but are making really interesting music that sounds nothing like most music in the top 40 (which is pretty diverse itself).


The problem with sales is that the they don't measure the same thing anymore - an example of the 'industry' variable I was talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Hot_100#Policy_changes

As for the 'single artist' method - see my answer above.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> The problem with sales is that the they don't measure the same thing anymore - an example of the 'industry' variable I was talking about.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Hot_100#Policy_changes
> 
> As for the 'single artist' method - see my answer above.


The reason I added the "etc." is because I'm very aware of the different and changing methods in how popularity is measured for things like the charts, like how airplay has mostly changed into streaming numbers. I still think we can have some good, educated guesses on what artists are/were among the most popular in any given time period. The metrics for determining that might change, but they still all point to what is, indeed, popular.

I must be missing your reply on the single artist method...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The reason I added the "etc." is because I'm very aware of the different and changing methods in how popularity is measured for things like the charts, like how airplay has mostly changed into streaming numbers. I still think we can have some good, educated guesses on what artists are/were among the most popular in any given time period. The metrics for determining that might change, but they still all point to what is, indeed, popular.
> 
> I must be missing your reply on the single artist method...


Yes, still what is popular - but with the changes to what and how it is measured come changes to the buyer is that is buying. I would argue that the demographic is not the same. In the late 70s, you generally had to go out and physically buy an LP or single (mail order was possible, but you were still buying a physical unit) and it cost cash money. Now, with an online subscription to a streaming service, you can buy limitless songs at a fraction of the cost - and you don't have to get wet going to the record shop.

See my post comparing the UK Top 40 over Christmas 1979 and 2021. They are quite different charts.

My reply on the single artist method was within my last post, and alongside my original mention of it. To use pianozach's example, you can measure the harmonic content of the works of Paul McCartney, but they can't stand for the whole of pop music. Pop music is not monolithic, as SanAntone says.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Yes, still what is popular - but with the changes to what and how it is measured come changes to the buyer is that is buying. I would argue that the demographic is not the same. In the late 70s, you generally had to go out and physically buy an LP or single (mail order was possible, but you were still buying a physical unit) and it cost cash money. Now, with an online subscription to a streaming service, you can buy limitless songs at a fraction of the cost - and you don't have to get wet going to the record shop.
> 
> See my post comparing the UK Top 40 over Christmas 1979 and 2021. They are quite different charts.
> 
> My reply on the single artist method was within my last post, and alongside my original mention of it. To use pianozach's example, you can measure the harmonic content of the works of Paul McCartney, but they can't stand for the whole of pop music. Pop music is not monolithic, as SanAntone says.


I'm just not sure how the changes you mention prevent us from comparing "like to like" if all we're concerned about is popularity. Even if we use different metrics to arrive at the notions that Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift were/are both immensely popular, as long as we agree they are/were popular then we can compare them on a limited metric like harmonic complexity.

Right, my issue is what you said: that no single artist can represent all of popular music throughout their entire career (and that to whatever extent they change/remain the same that isn't necessarily reflective of larger popular music trends). Someone like McCartney may still be popular but it's only because of his legacy, not because people are listening to his new music as much as someone like Billie Eilish.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm just not sure how the changes you mention prevent us from comparing "like to like" if all we're concerned about is popularity. Even if we use different metrics to arrive at the notions that Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift were/are both immensely popular, as long as we agree they are/were popular then we can compare them on a limited metric like harmonic complexity.
> 
> Right, my issue is what you said: that no single artist can represent all of popular music throughout their entire career (and that to whatever extent they change/remain the same that isn't necessarily reflective of larger popular music trends). Someone like McCartney may still be popular but it's only because of his legacy, not because people are listening to his new music as much as someone like Billie Eilish.


We agree on one significant point. Thanks.

On the issue of popularity, I guess what I'm arguing is that to measure an alleged decline in harmonic complexity, you have to be comparing what is popular among the same demographic over time. The implication behind the allegation is that those who listen to pop music today are satisfied with less challenging music...and that this is a proxy for the "decline of civilisation as we know it."

To get a sense of what music people of all demographics are listening to, you would need to survey them all.

Note too that the OP has not narrowed the definition to Top 40...just music that appeals "to the masses."

And still no concrete examples or details.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> We agree on one significant point. Thanks.
> 
> On the issue of popularity, I guess what I'm arguing is that to measure an alleged decline in harmonic complexity, you have to be comparing what is popular among the same demographic over time. The implication behind the allegation is that those who listen to pop music today are satisfied with less challenging music...and that this is a proxy for the "decline of civilisation as we know it."
> 
> ...


I guess I never had in mind comparing music that is popular among the same demographic rather than just what was most popular among the general public, which things like sales/streams/etc. are usually a pretty good indicator of. It's often the case that the most popular music is most popular precisely because it has a really wide demographic appeal, so looking at any one demographic would seem to be rather limiting in terms of sussing out popularity.

Yeah, the vagueness of the OP is one thing holding this discussion back from really progressing, though I took my cue from the video he posted as I'm aware of Beato's work and he's typically comparing modern "Top 40" with his favorite popular songs from the rock and roll era... not that his favorites are necessarily representative of what was most popular in their time. The video I posted in my first reply was a good response to Beato.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> This thread is based on a fallacy, i.e. Pop music has deteriorated, specifically in its usage of harmony. And I get the feeling that the OP is not open to changing his mind about the conclusion he began with. I don't think it is productive to continue trying to prove his premise wrong. He appears to re-enter the thread only to respond in the most cursory fashion and not give sufficient credence to the posts which effectively undercut his premise.


I mean, so far nobody has really disproven my claim. Most of the counterexamples were either 20 years old or obscure, so I'm not sure they can be considered representative for todays music.



SanAntone said:


> Styles change over time. Some decades songs were written one way, the next decade they were written differently. In every decade since the dawn of recorded music there are examples of songs which can demonstrate any premise: complex harmony, simple harmony, complex melodies, simple melodies, etc.


Yes every era had simple and complex music, but the proportion of simple to complex music has changed. Back in the days harmonically simple songs existed alongside more elaborate ones. But nowadays harmonically interesting music has become the rare exception.

I think that's my main problem. I'm not against the existence of simpler music. It's always been there and it as its place. My problem is the DISAPPEARANCE of harmonically creative music. I consider this a huge loss to modern music culture.



SanAntone said:


> Popular music is a huge universe of styles, genres, and production technology. *Any claim made about "Pop music" is false* since there is no single definition of Pop music. It, like all genres of music, is not monolithic.


No it isn't false. When I make a claim about Pop music then I don't mean that it applies to 100% of all songs, but that the claim is statistically very likely.
And some aspects of Pop music are close to monolithic. E.g. It's hard to deny that most Top 40 songs are vocals-centered, in 4/4 time and in verse-chorus form.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ There's no substantial claim to disprove. From the OP:



> Most modern Pop (that I'm aware of)


So, not even the Top 40. QED.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> ^ There's no substantial claim to disprove. From the OP:
> 
> So, not even the Top 40. QED.


For the sake of simplicity we can restrict the discussion to music that "charts" although I don't expect that it's that relevant to the validity of my argument.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> For the sake of simplicity we can restrict the discussion to music that "charts" although I don't expect that it's that relevant to the validity of my argument.


Well it helps narrow down what you're talking about.

So, give some concrete examples from chart music of the past year that you're familiar with, and then some chart music from before the beginning of the alleged decline.

After all, we have to be clear that there are some simple examples of what you mean before moving on to the idea that your examples are representative of a majority.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> I mean, so far nobody has really disproven my claim. Most of the counterexamples were either 20 years old or obscure, so I'm not sure they can be considered representative for todays music.


I posted five song videos from 2021 that exhibit what I consider sophisticated harmony. Of course you ignored it.



> Yes every era had simple and complex music, but the proportion of simple to complex music has changed. Back in the days harmonically simple songs existed alongside more elaborate ones. But nowadays harmonically interesting music has become the rare exception.


Pop music in the last 40 years had increasingly become more complex and varied in how it is complex than anything prior to 1960, when Pop music was less experimental and had less variety. Also Pop prior to 1960 was rhythmically simpler, lyrically simpler, and structurally simpler. IN short, you have it 180 backwards: Pop has become more complex, not less.



> I think that's my main problem. I'm not against the existence of simpler music. It's always been there and it as its place. My problem is the DISAPPEARANCE of harmonically creative music. I consider this a huge loss to modern music culture.


I think you are simply wrong - complex harmonic music is still there, along with complex music for different reasons.



> No it isn't false. When I make a claim about Pop music then I don't mean that it applies to 100% of all songs, but that the claim is statistically very likely. And some aspects of Pop music are close to monolithic. E.g. It's hard to deny that most Top 40 songs are vocals-centered, in 4/4 time and in verse-chorus form.


I am not limiting the discussion to Top Forty songs. You are trying to move the goalposts in order to exclude the very music you say does not exist. Sorry, not only do you lose credibility but your point loses all force because it is so limited in application.

We live in a real world, not a world you can slice up in order to "prove" a false premise.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

chipia said:


> I mean, so far nobody has really disproven my claim. Most of the counterexamples were either 20 years old or obscure, so I'm not sure they can be considered representative for todays music.
> 
> Yes every era had simple and complex music, but the proportion of simple to complex music has changed. Back in the days harmonically simple songs existed alongside more elaborate ones. But nowadays harmonically interesting music has become the rare exception.
> 
> ...


With all respect, you lost this debate. @SanAntone has clobbered your contentions.

Peace


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Re demographics and popularity.

My earlier post pointed out that because what is counted for sales has changed over the years, I would suggest that the people buying has changed too. That is, the age groups may have shifted, and the social and economic groups may have shifted too.

It's a hypothesis, not a proven fact, BTW.

Just to explain further, if the consumers of the songs that appear in the Billboard Hot 100 or the UK Top 40 in 2021 are predominantly in the 14-30 demographic, that may be different from, say, 1965, when there may have been a wider age distribution. In other words, it's not that the music has changed, but the chart has changed as listeners and their listening and purchasing habits have changed. The demographic that was previously purchasing "harmonically complex" pop music finds it elsewhere than in the charts. As San Antone says, just because it's not in the charts doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But since we have no idea what chipia is really referring to (except to the extent that some examples are offered in the Beato video) the whole idea is nebulous. Chipia dismisses "obscure" music...but doesn't say who was posting obscure examples, so we can't even make sense of that.

Still, that leaves us with the final request in the OP for some pointers to more harmonically interesting songs.

I'd have to leave that to those who know what that sounds like. I'm afraid I just know what pop music I like and what I don't; I'm not consciously looking for harmonically complex.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I posted five song videos from 2021 that exhibit what I consider sophisticated harmony. Of course you ignored it.


I said "Most of the counterexamples were either 20 years old *or obscure*". Your counterexamples fall into the "obscure" category. I think that _the music that is actually enjoyed by the majority of the people_ has been harmonically simplified.



SanAntone said:


> Pop music in the last 40 years had increasingly become more complex and varied in how it is complex than anything prior to 1960, when Pop music was less experimental and had less variety. Also Pop prior to 1960 was rhythmically simpler, lyrically simpler, and structurally simpler. IN short, you have it 180 backwards: Pop has become more complex, not less.


This thread is in particular about _harmony_, and so far my impression is that modern pop is on average harmonically much simpler than the music of the past. And this impression is in fact shared by many Pop Music Producers who are immersed in the industry (I've already mentioned Beato).

Also, I don't think that harmony is a trivial aspect of music, whose complexity can be simply ignored. There's a reason the bulk of Western Music Theory is devoted to the Theory of Harmony.



SanAntone said:


> I think you are simply wrong - complex harmonic music is still there, along with complex music for different reasons.


Yes, it's still there but has become very rare compared to the past. Some music producers even admit that Western Audiences nowadays cannot tolerate complex harmonies and as a result they turn to the Asian market.



SanAntone said:


> I am not limiting the discussion to Top Forty songs. You are trying to move the goalposts in order to exclude the very music you say does not exist. Sorry, not only do you lose credibility but your point loses all force because it is so limited in application.
> 
> We live in a real world, not a world you can slice up in order to "prove" a false premise.


Even if we don't limit it to the Top Forty, my argument stays mostly valid. There may be some specific genres where they don't always apply, e.g. Prog and EDM, but if you look at the totality of all pop songs written today, I'm sure you will find certain characteristics that apply to at least 50% of them.

Btw I referred to the Top 40, because the term "Pop Music" seems to cause some confusion here.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Just to explain further, if the consumers of the songs that appear in the Billboard Hot 100 or the UK Top 40 in 2021 are predominantly in the 14-30 demographic, that may be different from, say, 1965, when there may have been a wider age distribution. In other words, it's not that the music has changed, but the chart has changed as listeners and their listening and purchasing habits have changed. The demographic that was previously purchasing "harmonically complex" pop music finds it elsewhere than in the charts. As San Antone says, just because it's not in the charts doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I understand what you're saying now, though I'm still not sure how that's relevant to whether the most popular was more/less complex than now. I mean, I guess it could be possible that different age groups have different preferences for the harmonic complexity of the music they listen to, but I'm just not sure how relevant it is if all we care about is the harmonic complexity of what's popular as opposed to the demographics of those deciding what's popular.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I understand what you're saying now, though I'm still not sure how that's relevant to whether the most popular was more/less complex than now. I mean, I guess it could be possible that different age groups have different preferences for the harmonic complexity of the music they listen to, but I'm just not sure how relevant it is if all we care about is the harmonic complexity of what's popular as opposed to the demographics of those deciding what's popular.


It's relevant because it's not the music that is changing, but the listener base for what is popular that is changing.

The OP has shifted the goalposts, but has repeated the claims about pop music in their latest post.

As critics of Beato have said, it's all too easy - and misleading - to compare the best of previous generations of music with the worst of today's.

Beato points to the marvellous complexity of a song by Radiohead...so could have pointed to a Radiohead song from their most recent album. Would his argument still hold up?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Forster said:


> It's relevant because it's not the music that is changing, but the listener base for what is popular that is changing.
> 
> The OP has shifted the goalposts, but has repeated the claims about pop music in their latest post.
> 
> ...


Radiohead is "complex"? They're not Steely Dan. Although I like his channel, Beato sometimes exaggerates.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> I said "Most of the counterexamples were either 20 years old *or obscure*". Your counterexamples fall into the "obscure" category. I think that _the music that is actually enjoyed by the majority of the people_ has been harmonically simplified.


Those examples may be "obscure" to you but all of them received signifiant coverage within the global music press, a generally positive critical reaction, and audience support. Some appeared on end of year lists of the best albums in 2021. Throughout a year I follow a variety of genres and collect the best examples in playlists. The only items that are saved are those which 1) I think are exceptional and 2) were brought to my attention through an article, a list, or a review. The 2021 list has over 1450 songs, from about 150 albums. I don't pay attention to "Top Forty" music which is written for teenagers and is not worth discussing much less studying.

You can limit a discussion anyway you wish. But it does not make that discussion worth much since it boils down to you announcing your opinion about a small segment of popular music, the worst and least representative segment. The reality of the Pop music scene is quite different from your analysis, which strikes me as generally uninformed.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Radiohead is "complex"? They're not Steely Dan. Although I like his channel, Beato sometimes exaggerates.


I don't know. I was reporting what Beato said. I know I like Radiohead though.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

chipia said:


> Also, I don't think that harmony is a trivial aspect of music, whose complexity can be simply ignored. There's a reason the bulk of Western Music Theory is devoted to the Theory of Harmony.


I don't think that harmony is a trivial aspect of music, but I also don't think it deserves the often myopic-level of focus it's been given in Western music theory often at the expense of other factors that have just as large of an impact (if not more so) on our enjoyment and appreciation of music. It also leaves us overlooking a thousand other ways to make music that can move people just as much, if not more so (Adam Neely, who knows just as much about theory as Beato, has spoken frequently about this). I also don't think more complex harmony is tantamount to better harmony, or better music in general.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> It's relevant because it's not the music that is changing, but the listener base for what is popular that is changing.
> 
> The OP has shifted the goalposts, but has repeated the claims about pop music in their latest post.
> 
> ...


If the listener base changes making popular music change then popular music is still changing; all you've done is identified one cause of that change.

We agree about the rest, and I'm sure Beato could've used a more recent Radiohead song because it's not as if they've simplified their sound/style.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I don't pay attention to "Top Forty" music which is written for teenagers and is not worth discussing much less studying.


You do realize that most all of the bands/artists hailed as the greatest in the history of pop music were, at least at one point, artists that had music in the Top 40, yes? Target demographic has nothing to do with the quality of the music (Beatles had their screaming teenage girl fans at first too), and the "global music press" has often selected albums that had prominent Top 40 hits as among the best of any given year. I don't know what sense it makes to embrace pop music but reject the most popular pop music when most of the best pop artists of the past were also among the most popular.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ I think it makes sense, for precisely the same reason thst the OP's claim doesn't make sense: "pop music" isn't monolithic, and can't be dismissed or embraced as if it is.

When I started to embrace pop music, I loved the Beatles but loathed John Rowles, loved Manfred Mann but loathed Engelbert Humperdinck...


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You do realize that most all of the bands/artists hailed as the greatest in the history of pop music were, at least at one point, artists that had music in the Top 40, yes? Target demographic has nothing to do with the quality of the music (Beatles had their screaming teenage girl fans at first too), and the "global music press" has often selected albums that had prominent Top 40 hits as among the best of any given year. I don't know what sense it makes to embrace pop music but reject the most popular pop music when most of the best pop artists of the past were also among the most popular.


maybe you can explain to us all the universality of "quality in music."

Try not to use criteria that favors your preferred genre. 
tHanks!


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You do realize that most all of the bands/artists hailed as the greatest in the history of pop music were, at least at one point, artists that had music in the Top 40, yes?


Agreed. I find it interesting that SanAntone claims that Top Forty music is for teens and not worth any attention, yet he opened the "Beach Boys Appreciation" thread for one of the most popular bands of the 60s. If the Top 40 bands of the 60s are worth appreciating but modern Top 40 artists arent'... doesn't that confirm that the music that is actually popular today _has_ in fact declined?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> ^ I think it makes sense, for precisely the same reason thst the OP's claim doesn't make sense: "pop music" isn't monolithic, and can't be dismissed or embraced as if it is.
> 
> When I started to embrace pop music, I loved the Beatles but loathed John Rowles, loved Manfred Mann but loathed Engelbert Humperdinck...


I agree pop music isn't monolithic, but that also applies to the Top 40. At various times even in modern days there have been some incredibly diverse artists within the top 40 representing a lot of different aspects and trends in pop music. Billie Eilish doesn't sound anything like Adele, who doesn't sound anything like Bruno Mars, who doesn't sound anything like Ed Sheeran, etc. I don't pay particular interest to the top 40, no more so than I pay to obscure artists I find via various recommendations or critics' lists, but neither do I ignore it. Taylor Swift is legitimately one of my favorite pop artists ever, as one example.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

eljr said:


> maybe you can explain to us all the universality of "quality in music."
> 
> Try not to use criteria that favors your preferred genre.
> tHanks!


I was not suggesting a universality of "quality in music," merely that target demographic doesn't determine that quality, whatever it is. I think it's rather naive to think that songwriters write for any particular demographic to begin with. Having observed the creative processes of pop songwriters before (albeit limited to what's shown in various BTS documentaries) I've never once heard anyone mention a target demographic and used that to inform any of their musical choices. However, even if it were true it was "written for teenagers," I fail to see how this fact would automatically prevent someone from producing great music, just as there are literary (and film/tv) masterpieces/classics made for kids and/or teenagers.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I was not suggesting a universality of "quality in music," merely that target demographic doesn't determine that quality, whatever it is. I think it's rather naive to think that songwriters write for any particular demographic to begin with. Having observed the creative processes of pop songwriters before (albeit limited to what's shown in various BTS documentaries) I've never once heard anyone mention a target demographic and used that to inform any of their musical choices. However, even if it were true it was "written for teenagers," I fail to see how this fact would automatically prevent someone from producing great music, just as there are literary (and film/tv) masterpieces/classics made for kids and/or teenagers.


I have been in the music industry since the early 1970s, and as a professional songwriter in Nashville since 1988. I can tell you that there is a specific demographic that all songwriters are aware of, though not all write for (I did not), but that producers and label A&R personnel target - and it is the 14-25 age group. It is targeted because it is the most lucrative demographic, although it also has the shortest shelf-life of all artists and songs.

That has been the target audience for top forty radio for decades. This doesn't mean that the songwriters working in that milieu do not write with artistic integrity, but they write songs that they hope teenagers will like. Often the artists themselves are members of the same demographic and they are encouraged to co-write with professional songwriters. These artists, especially the female artists will bring their journal to a writing session to mine for song ideas. This is exactly what Taylor Swift did early in her career in Nashville.

Top forty songs are not the best examples of Pop songwriting, IMO, because they are designed to appeal to a mass audience and repeat stylistic tropes and cliches and often the same chord progressions, tempos, and hooks. It is the most commercial music, on purpose, and consequently qualities such as harmonic sophistication are not a priority, on purpose.

But top forty Pop is only one kind, a subset, that is not representative of much of the music that is called Pop.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I have been in the music industry since the early 1970s, and as a professional songwriter in Nashville .


Did you know Jerry Taylor?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> Did you know Jerry Taylor?


I knew of him but never wrote with him.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I knew of him but never wrote with him.


a fine man, we had struck up a correspondence several years before his passing


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I have been in the music industry since the early 1970s, and as a professional songwriter in Nashville since 1988. I can tell you that there is a specific demographic that all songwriters are aware of, though not all write for (I did not), but that producers and label A&R personnel target - and it is the 14-25 age group. It is targeted because it is the most lucrative demographic, although it also has the shortest shelf-life of all artists and songs.
> 
> That has been the target audience for top forty radio for decades. This doesn't mean that the songwriters working in that milieu do not write with artistic integrity, but they write songs that they hope teenagers will like. Often the artists themselves are members of the same demographic and they are encouraged to co-write with professional songwriters. These artists, especially the female artists will bring their journal to a writing session to mine for song ideas. This is exactly what Taylor Swift did early in her career in Nashville.
> 
> ...


Being aware of a demographic and writing for that demographic are two different things, and the demographic targeting and marketing by labels is also a different thing entirely. I absolutely acknowledged it's targeted by the latter because it's the most lucrative demographic as teenager spend the most on music (which would also imply they're the most passionate about music, at least in terms of sheer numbers).

You hit closest to the issue when you say that songwriters still write with artistic integrity, and that's most important. But I also think what's important to this issue is whether or not they are making specific choices because of them targeting a demographic and what that would even look like. As an example we know that many composers wrote differently when they were doing commercial or commissioned projects and had to be mindful of the desires of those they were writing for as opposed to having free reign to write what they wanted; but I don't see evidence of this in the world of pop music. Is there a pop songwriter writing one way to generate Top 40 hits but a different way entirely for a side-project? I can't think of any examples. Without any examples, I don't know how you're going to argue that this target demographic is somehow informing the choices songwriters frequently in the top 40 make, nor how it's limiting them.

Plus, there's also the issue that given that it is the most lucrative demographic it would follow reason that it's among the most competitive. Where there's money there's usually a lot of competition, with only a handful making a living at it, and only an even smaller handful being among the best in their fields. This would imply there's a definite talent to making that kind of music and doing it successfully. If it was easy, then everyone could be Max Martin, and they demonstrably are not. You can "design to appeal to a mass audience" all you want, but it doesn't mean you'll be good or successful at it. As Billy Wilder once said about films: "The audience is never wrong. Any individual member may be an imbecile, but 1000 imbeciles alone in the dark? That's critical genius."

I absolutely agree that Top 40 is only a subset of pop music and that it's not necessarily representative of all pop music. I just think it strange for someone to embrace pop music in general but ignore all of the top 40 when most of history's greatest were top 40 artists at one time.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You hit closest to the issue when you say that songwriters still write with artistic integrity, and that's most important. But I also think what's important to this issue is whether or not they are making specific choices because of them targeting a demographic and what that would even look like.


I can tell you that there are songwriters who intentionally write the kind of song they hope will resonate with the younger market. That is their only concern, that is why they write a song. They do this because when their publisher tells them that a certain artist is looking for songs, they try their best to write something for that artist, who only wants songs of a certain style. Songwriters who write for these artists, aimed at the young market, get rich if they get enough songs cut.

This is how the business works. But it is not all songwriters. There are also writers in Nashville who are not interested in having their songs cut by one of those artists. They write the kind of song that they want, and often they make their own records. They usually don't get rich, but they can have a career. These were the writers I worked with; I also did not get rich - but enjoyed the process of co-writing with them and we wrote a few good songs. There are also songwriters writing for an older demographic, who write good songs and get recorded by mature artists. And sometimes these make a lot of money as well.

But the big publishers in Nashville are not interested in "art." They want to make money and only sign writers who write the kind of song that will make lots of money.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Top forty songs are not the best examples of Pop songwriting, IMO, because they are designed to appeal to a mass audience and repeat stylistic tropes and cliches and often the same chord progressions, tempos, and hooks. It is the most commercial music, on purpose, and consequently qualities such as harmonic sophistication are not a priority, on purpose.


So you actually agree that modern Top 40 music has become more simplistic? Plenty of Top 40 music of earlier decades had very sophisticated harmonies, for example the Beach Boys, who you even opened a thread for.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While there is some truth in the generalization that pop has become more harmonically simple, there's some complications when one looks at the details of the claim. One complication is that pop music has ALWAYS been more harmonically simple than genres like jazz and classical. Rock music, itself, was a simplification and hybridization of the blues, r&b, and jazz before it. Harmony has always taken a backseat to melody and hooks in terms of their importance to pop music, and to the extent that pop music made use of advance harmony it was never to the detriment of melody and hooks.
> 
> Another complication is the fact that while the kind of harmony used in pop music has been stagnant for a century or more (really even longer than our modern conception of pop music has been around), production has actually evolved a great deal. Digital technology has given people access to a greater variety of sounds and options for layering and mixing than ever before, so it's not surprising that the art of pop music has shifted away from harmony and towards production. What's funny about Beato is that he seems to be someone who recognizes this, but for whatever reason he's inclined to downplay the artistry inherent in modern production in favor of lamenting the lack of harmonic complexity... *but if you're really looking for harmonic complexity why are you listening to any pop music rather than Messiaen or Ferneyhough or any number of modern/contemporary classical composers or jazz? It's a bit like complaining that McDonald's isn't serving fillet mignon. *
> 
> ...


About the bolded part, personally I love also jazz and classical music with harmonic sophistication (Messiaen is a big favorite of mine), but the reason for being interested in that in pop music is simply because I love songs and I know that harmonic complexity done well can bring amazing results. 
Also, having an interest in harmony and making a thread about it doesn't mean saying that harmony is the only important component, but more that some of us recognize that a special part of music is often ignored and simplified.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> So you actually agree that modern Top 40 music has become more simplistic? Plenty of Top 40 music of earlier decades had very sophisticated harmonies, for example the Beach Boys, who you even opened a thread for.


When the Beach Boys began writing more complex harmonically songs, they were not as successful on top forty radio. This is the main reason the band suffered commercially after Pet Sounds. However, there are good songs on top forty radio, and some are harmonically advanced beyond simple I-IV-V songs, or I-vi-IV-V songs which were the kind you mostly heard in the 50s and 60s.

You created a thread The Death of Pop Harmony. You did not say "top forty harmony," that was your bait and switch once you realized that you could not win an argument based on all of Pop.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> When the Beach Boys began writing more complex harmonically songs, they were not as successful on top forty radio. This is the main reason the band suffered commercially after Pet Sounds. However, there are good songs on top forty radio, and some are harmonically advanced beyond simple I-IV-V songs, or I-vi-IV-V songs which were the kind you mostly heard in the 50s and 60s.


Pet Sounds actually had 4 songs charting in the Top 40. And the Beach Boys are far from the only interesting artist. Beatles had plenty of inventive songs (e.g. Strawberry Fields Forever), artists like Earth Wind And Fire or Stevie Wonder had some elaborate Jazz-influenced chord progressions. Stuff like this still exists as you've shown, but it has become quite niche compared to the past, where it used to be the music of the masses.



SanAntone said:


> You created a thread The Death of Pop Harmony. You did not say "top forty harmony," that was your bait and switch once you realized that you could not win an argument based on all of Pop.


Well, there are many different definitions of what "Pop" means. I mostly meant the music that appeals to the masses, although I actually do suspect that my argument also holds for popular music in the broad sense. However, that would be impractical to prove, since it would require the analysis of millions of songs of the past and present and to compare the ratio of complex music today to the ratio of complex music in the 70s, and who has time for that?

So I think it makes sense to restrict the discussion to chart music, as the comparison between the charts of various years is a much more feasible task, and they can serve as a proxy for the taste of the masses.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

chipia said:


> there are many different definitions of what "Pop" means. I mostly meant the music that appeals to the masses.


not really

Pop is popular, the music that appeals to the masses. No confusion should be at play.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

1950s pop. Back when pop music was more complex, per the OP.

Released in 1958. *Ritchie Valens*' highest-charting single, reaching No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1959.

Surprisingly there are actually more than three chords






And the #1, #2, and #3 singles of the year were

1 "*The Battle of New Orleans*" Johnny Horton 
. . . . . 3 chords
2 "_*Mack the Knife*_" Bobby Darin
. . . . . a harmonically dumbed down version of a Kurt Weill song
3 "*Personality*" Lloyd Price
. . . . . 6 or 7 chords, but a horridly predictable arrangement.














Today's Pop music is definitely *NOT* "_*less*_ complex".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> Pet Sounds actually had 4 songs charting in the Top 40. And the Beach Boys are far from the only interesting artist. Beatles had plenty of inventive songs (e.g. Strawberry Fields Forever), artists like Earth Wind And Fire or Stevie Wonder had some elaborate Jazz-influenced chord progressions. Stuff like this still exists as you've shown, but it has become quite niche compared to the past, where it used to be the music of the masses.


And then we had Disco. Pop goes in waves, a period of creativity followed by a period of formulaic dance music, followed by another stylistic change, like Punk in response to Disco. One of the most creative styles is Hip-Hop which brought in rhythmic, lyrical, and technological complexity never found in pop previously. There's been Prog, Art Pop, Dream Pop, Metal of various shades from Dark to Death. And all along there's been Pop that's song and singer driven, often with material that could have been written decades ago.

For you there was a "golden age" that has gone downhill. But that premise is simply not true.



> Well, there are many different definitions of what "Pop" means. I mostly meant the music that appeals to the masses, although I actually do suspect that my argument also holds for popular music in the broad sense. However, that would be impractical to prove, since it would require the analysis of millions of songs of the past and present and to compare the ratio of complex music today to the ratio of complex music in the 70s, and who has time for that?
> 
> So I think it makes sense to restrict the discussion to chart music, as the comparison between the charts of various years is a much more feasible task, and they can serve as a proxy for the taste of the masses.[


The music market has changed dramatically since the Internet became the primary method of listening to music. Radio has been eclipsed, and for some time, by streaming. Top forty is an obsolete term. A number of artists who have been very successful were a phenomenon of YouTube, a video they put up "went viral" and sometimes their music was used in a TV series, or a movie. Once they got 1 million subscribers they were offered a record deal, or sometimes a distribution deal. IOW, the market is not being driven by record labels, A&R departments, or radio, and has been replaced by artists who find an audience through social media. This often allows them to be free to be as creative as they can imagine, producing Pop that is harmonically advanced, as well as technologically complex.

I think you have a preconceived premise and refuse to admit that your premise is flawed, at best, totally untrue IMO. I also think you are biased against Pop in general, convinced that it is not as complex as Classical music and this bias has appeared in several threads.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

pianozach said:


> 1950s pop. Back when pop music was more complex, per the OP.


well you know, before the sixties there were also things like these:































and even before the Beach boys there was a vocal group like The Hi-Los making extremely sophisticated things (especially with that god of harmony called Clare Fischer). It's a different genre, more pop jazz but still:






in any case one thing that should be said is that at least to me it's not just a matter of throwing extended chords, but that generally speaking those songs were extremely well crafted, which makes the harmonic complexity in those songs something unavoidable and not just someone putting chords against chords trying to sound clever. I'm not sure how many guys there are today with the talent of a Gerswhin, a Cole Porter, a Jobim or a Hoagy Carmichael in that respect.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I can tell you that there are songwriters who intentionally write the kind of song they hope will resonate with the younger market. That is their only concern, that is why they write a song. They do this because when their publisher tells them that a certain artist is looking for songs, they try their best to write something for that artist, who only wants songs of a certain style. Songwriters who write for these artists, aimed at the young market, get rich if they get enough songs cut.
> 
> This is how the business works. But it is not all songwriters. There are also writers in Nashville who are not interested in having their songs cut by one of those artists. They write the kind of song that they want, and often they make their own records. They usually don't get rich, but they can have a career. These were the writers I worked with; I also did not get rich - but enjoyed the process of co-writing with them and we wrote a few good songs. There are also songwriters writing for an older demographic, who write good songs and get recorded by mature artists. And sometimes these make a lot of money as well.
> 
> But the big publishers in Nashville are not interested in "art." They want to make money and only sign writers who write the kind of song that will make lots of money.


While I appreciate your responses I feel like you're failing to scratch the itch I'm trying to get scratched. Your initial claim was the Top 40 is music written for teenagers, and that's why you ignore it. While not explicitly stated, that claim seems to carry several judgments and/or assumptions.

One assumption is that people are intentionally writing songs targeted at that demographic. I ask what this would look like as opposed to them writing songs NOT aimed at that demographic. IE, what does "targeting the teenage demographic" look like in terms of their creative choices? You simply saying they do so... doesn't really tell me much. At most it suggests they will write songs "of a certain style" to fit an artist they're trying to write for, but that's about it.

Another judgment is that, for whatever reason, all of this music they write isn't worthwhile or is less valuable than music NOT written for that market, and I don't see why this would/should be so, especially given the history of pop music.

This also seems to ignore the many artists who are regularly in the top 40 that do happen to write their own songs/music. We aren't limited to talking about artists who do have songs written for them when talking about the top 40.

Finally, you ignored the point in my last post about the competitive nature of the field and it requiring talent to succeed. Why would/should we dismiss or ignore such talent to begin with? What is it that makes the talent required for writing songs that appeal to the masses less worthy of attention than those that don't?

I think whether or not publishers are interested in art is irrelevant. I doubt Shakespeare's and The Beatles and Hitchcock's producers were interested in art either, but art is what they got. Great artists can make great art with or without commercial concerns.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> About the bolded part, personally I love also jazz and classical music with harmonic sophistication (Messiaen is a big favorite of mine), but the reason for being interested in that in pop music is simply because I love songs and I know that harmonic complexity done well can bring amazing results.
> Also, having an interest in harmony and making a thread about it doesn't mean saying that harmony is the only important component, but more that some of us recognize that a special part of music is often ignored and simplified.


I can sympathize with this perspective, but if you're looking for greater harmonic complexity in song-form then I'd recommend exploring a genre like prog rock and art rock rather than pop. As I've said elsewhere, pop music has always been a simplification of whatever genres it was influenced by, and those genres change over time and tend to be whatever is new at the time. Right now it's mostly influenced by electronic music and hip-hop. That will undoubtedly change eventually, but whether or not harmonic complexity will return is anyone's guess.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> Pet Sounds actually had 4 songs charting in the Top 40. And the Beach Boys are far from the only interesting artist. Beatles had plenty of inventive songs (e.g. Strawberry Fields Forever), artists like Earth Wind And Fire or Stevie Wonder had some elaborate Jazz-influenced chord progressions. Stuff like this still exists as you've shown, but it has become quite niche compared to the past, where it used to be the music of the masses.


"Music of the masses" sounds unfortunately like "the opium of the people" and disparagingly so. It's one of the reasons why the word 'pop' is objected to by those who wish to see their favoured branch relabelled and elevated ("prog rock" or "indie" for example. I suspect "indie" is taken to mean that the listener is independent of thought, not just that the music is released on an independent record label!)



chipia said:


> Well, there are many different definitions of what "Pop" means. I mostly meant the music that appeals to the masses, although I actually do suspect that my argument also holds for popular music in the broad sense. However, that would be impractical to prove, since it would require the analysis of millions of songs of the past and present and to compare the ratio of complex music today to the ratio of complex music in the 70s, and who has time for that?


So, finally, an admission that your contention is utterly impossible to substantiate and therefore worthless.

Thank you.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> And then we had Disco. Pop goes in waves, a period of creativity followed by a period of formulaic dance music, followed by another stylistic change, like *Punk in response to Disco*.


Punk was arguably more in response to psychedelic rock, 70s A&R rock, and (later) prog rather than disco. Disco and punk inhabited two completely different realms of pop music. Punk was also an outgrowth of the bands returning to the roots of rock and roll against the excesses of mainstream rock at the time (ala The Stooges, The New York Dolls), or the artier bands that wanted to do something new but didn't have the technical talents of the prog bands (ala The Velvet Underground). The original punk bands also preceded disco--at least the popularization of it--by several years.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> "Music of the masses" sounds unfortunately like "the opium of the people" and disparagingly so. It's one of the reasons why the word 'pop' is objected to by those who wish to see their favoured branch relabelled and elevated ("prog rock" or "indie" for example. I suspect "indie" is taken to mean that the listener is independent of thought, not just that the music is released on an independent record label!)


While I think there's some truth to this I also think it's the fact that the term "pop" doesn't connote any actual musical style. If we're using the term "pop" in the broadest sense and I say "I'm going to play you a pop song," what actual musical qualities would you expect to hear? At least if I say "I'm going to play you a prog rock song" you will have a better idea: it's probably going to be longer, more harmonically complex, more virtuosic, etc. Ideally categories are supposed to point us towards objective features of the objects they categorize. When a term like pop gets so broad it doesn't do this. I also doubt whether "indie" does this in any meaningful way. This is all just to say that I do think there is a utility in such categorizations within pop music that isn't necessarily about "elevating" one's favorite branch or objecting to the idea of pop music in general.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While I think there's some truth to this I also think it's the fact that the term "pop" doesn't connote any actual musical style. If we're using the term "pop" in the broadest sense and I say "I'm going to play you a pop song," what actual musical qualities would you expect to hear? At least if I say "I'm going to play you a prog rock song" you will have a better idea: it's probably going to be longer, more harmonically complex, more virtuosic, etc. Ideally categories are supposed to point us towards objective features of the objects they categorize. When a term like pop gets so broad it doesn't do this. I also doubt whether "indie" does this in any meaningful way. This is all just to say that I do think there is a utility in such categorizations within pop music that isn't necessarily about "elevating" one's favorite branch or objecting to the idea of pop music in general.


I just think that this thread has shown how useless a term 'pop' is if you want to have a meaningful discussion about the _content _of the music that isn't classical, folk or jazz and which sells in large quantities to a wide demographic:

It's quite handy if what one is seeking to do is to dismiss the tastes of "the masses."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I can sympathize with this perspective, but if you're looking for greater harmonic complexity in song-form then I'd recommend exploring a genre like prog rock and art rock rather than pop. As I've said elsewhere, pop music has always been a simplification of whatever genres it was influenced by, and those genres change over time and tend to be whatever is new at the time. Right now it's mostly influenced by electronic music and hip-hop. That will undoubtedly change eventually, but whether or not harmonic complexity will return is anyone's guess.


I started listening prog rock decades ago (and there are many bands that I appreciate) but I think that the best pop songwriters are generally way ahead than anything prog rock has, in terms of songwriting. I mean, in prog I can find a lot longer pieces with certain ideas that are not there in pop, but on the other hand pop can have more harmonic sophistication than prog (where often the complexity in terms of harmony is just throwing dissonance after dissonance in a instrumental part instead of reasoning in terms of making the song memorable with that complexity, if I can put it this way.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I started listening prog rock decades ago (and there are many bands that I appreciate) but I think that the best pop songwriters are generally way ahead than anything prog rock has, in terms of songwriting. I mean, in prog I can find a lot longer pieces with certain ideas that are not there in pop, but on the other hand pop can have more harmonic sophistication than prog (where often the complexity in terms of harmony is just throwing dissonance after dissonance in a instrumental part instead of reasoning in terms of making the song memorable with that complexity, if I can put it this way.)


Now it would depend on what's meant by "in terms of songwriting." Prog tends to push "songwriting" closer to "music" where the thing that makes it a song (the voice singing lyrics) becomes just another instrument and the lyrics don't matter as much. No argument that pop CAN have more harmonic sophistication than prog, but it rarely does, and almost never does in the kind of long-form way that prog tends to. An example that immediately comes to mind is Dream Theater's Octavarium, in which the album is structured around each song's key ascending the chromatic scale with interludes handling the sharps/flats and the 8 main tracks handling the non-sharp/flat keys. The title track itself is pretty harmonically adventurous as well over its 24-minute runtime. Can't think of any pop albums that have done that, though maybe some have.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Gawd I hated *Disco* when it first appeared. I'm a little more tolerant of it now, but a music genre based on one specific dance beat, with lyrics that seemed to always be about dancing, really turned me off.

Surprising when *Punk*, with its head-banging simplicity gave it a run for its money. Yeah, I hated Punk too.

I'm afraid to Google it, but I'll bet there was a *Punk Disco* genre.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

norman bates said:


> well you know, before the sixties there were also things like these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that kind of stuff hardly seems to be he "Pop" music the OP is whining about, but I could be wrong about that.

That stuff has some complex chords and progressions, but this was "Popular" music, as opposed to "Pop Music". Not really in the same league, and not geared towards a teen market with expendable cash. Yes, it's a 'fine' distinction. That older "Popular" music also *embraced* *jazz* sensibilities.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The GASB were popular songs which mostly came from Broadway shows, not 100%, but in the majority. Composers writing these shows were very conscious of the opportunity for a song to have a life outside of the show and would write accordingly, i.e. not make them so character specific that a singer separate from the show would avoid the song.

After the 60s and with bands writing their own songs, fewer songs from shows made it onto Pop radio. Sondheim talks about this having a freeing effect for composers like himself, i.e. no longer having to write with a song's opportunities outside of the show. "Send in the Clowns" was about the only song of his that became a "hit" but that was not planned by him.

There are a couple of assumptions in this thread which I think are problematic: 1) that simpler harmony is a negative aspect and 2) that other aspects of Pop song construction are not as, or even more, important as harmony.

Regarding #1: simple harmony has been responsible for most of the music in the world throughout human history. Not only is simple harmony not a negative, it is the hallmark of good songwriting, i.e. placing the emphasis on the melody, expressiveness, and lyrics. Often I find advanced harmony adds a cerebral level to the song which distances it from the emotional expressiveness of the song/lyric. This is easily heard/felt when Jazz musicians arrange a Pop song and abstract it to the point of obscuring its emotional impact.

Regarding #2: aspects other than harmony go into making a song, or more precisely a Pop record and are as, and often more, important than the harmony. Because of recording technology, many bands, songwriters, producers, and artists use the studio as instrumental in the composition of the song as they are with lyrics and music. In fact many songwriters see writing the music and lyrics as just the first step in the process of completing the song it in the studio. Ignoring this and focusing solely on the harmonic component is so limited in its analysis as to produce nothing but a biased result.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

pianozach said:


> Yeah, that kind of stuff hardly seems to be he "Pop" music the OP is whining about, but I could be wrong about that.
> 
> That stuff has some complex chords and progressions, but this was "Popular" music, as opposed to "Pop Music". Not really in the same league, and not geared towards a teen market with expendable cash. Yes, it's a 'fine' distinction. That older "Popular" music also *embraced* *jazz* sensibilities.


we're still talking about melodic songs, and sometimes successful stuff (bossanova for instance has been extremely popular, same for singers like Sinatra who was always singing the songs of the great american songbook), so while I can see that distinction in certain cases I think that in many case that's pop music 100% and not just "popular music". Personally I think that it's easier to accept that songs outside classical music have been done in a much more banal and commercial way on one hand and in a much more artful and sophisticated way on the other extreme and they are often both part of the same world of the non classsical melodic song.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Regarding #1: simple harmony has been responsible for most of the music in the world throughout human history. Not only is simple harmony not a negative, it is the hallmark of good songwriting,


I strongly disagree about this. The fact that there are without a doubt a huge amount of beautiful songs that are based on very banal progressions it's often due to the fact that as you were saying, there are other aspects in a song that can make it great. But in itself, repeating the same clichè after a billion of other songs is a way of composing that is indeed banal and not creative at all. I know you've never been a great fan of harmony (I remember our past discussions about this), but what if we would make the same assumptions about rhythm. Let's say, instead of the subtleties of swing, we replace it with the most banal and square rhythm possible. Of couse we would still have tons of great songs even with that trivial rhyhtm, but somebody would note that swing was an enrichment in terms of sophistication and creativity and the square rhythm is not the "hallmark of good rhyhtm".


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

norman bates said:


> I strongly disagree about this. The fact that there are without a doubt a huge amount of beautiful songs that are based on very banal progressions it's often due to the fact that as you were saying, there are other aspects in a song that can make it great. But in itself, repeating the same clichè after a billion of other songs is a way of composing that is indeed banal and not creative at all. I know you've never been a great fan of harmony (I remember our past discussions about this), but what if we would make the same assumptions about rhythm. Let's say, instead of the subtleties of swing, we replace it with the most banal and square rhythm possible. Of couse we would still have tons of great songs even with that trivial rhyhtm, but somebody would note that swing was an enrichment in terms of sophistication and creativity and the square rhythm is not the "hallmark of good rhyhtm".


It struck me in reading this that you have a personal set of expectations which support your biases and do not enjoy the universality you claim. Just sayin' I have no dog in this fight as it were. Just my impression while walking by.

peace


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I strongly disagree about this. The fact that there are without a doubt a huge amount of beautiful songs that are based on very banal progressions it's often due to the fact that as you were saying, there are other aspects in a song that can make it great. But in itself, repeating the same clichè after a billion of other songs is a way of composing that is indeed banal and not creative at all. I know you've never been a great fan of harmony (I remember our past discussions about this), but what if we would make the same assumptions about rhythm. Let's say, instead of the subtleties of swing, we replace it with the most banal and square rhythm possible. Of couse we would still have tons of great songs even with that trivial rhyhtm, but somebody would note that swing was an enrichment in terms of sophistication and creativity and the square rhythm is not the "hallmark of good rhyhtm".


I am a fan of harmony, but I see it as one component of a song. For me the song is made up of melody, lyrics, and harmony (or more precisely *accompaniment*), all which create the mood and message the songwriter wants to communicate (*communication* is the point of a song). All of the ingredients must serve the communication of the song, and each one must enhance the mood and message. If the accompaniment is too complicated it can undercut the effectiveness of the mood and message of the lyrics and melody.

None of these aspects can be seen in the abstract, i.e. thinking that the more complex the harmony the better. Complex harmony has its place and is right for some songs, but more often than not a song is more successful with a balance between all the components. More recently the accompaniment has included riffs, instrumental or studio technological aspects along with harmony.

For me a song is best presented with the focus on the melody and lyrics, and an accompaniment which enhances but doesn't obscure the other two - and if it is effective in that setting it is a good song.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I also wish to underscore the distinction between song-*writing* and *arranging*. Most songs can be harmonized in a variety of ways sometimes offering interesting results.

One of my exercises when I was first being taught music theory was to re-harmonize the song Oh Suzanna with a new chord every other beat (or two chords per bar) the only rule being that the melody note had to appear in a diatonic triad, but not necessarily from the same key. E.G. the note "g" could be harmonized with a C Major, E-flat Major, G Major, E Minor, G Minor, C Minor, chords, and more if you include augmented and diminished chords.

James Taylor recorded the song with his own re-harmonization, and it was interesting. But I prefer simpler more straight forward accompaniments.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

eljr said:


> It struck me in reading this that you have a personal set of expectations which support your biases and do not enjoy the universality you claim. Just sayin' I have no dog in this fight as it were. Just my impression while walking by.
> 
> peace


my expectations are about creativity. As I've said, I perfectly know that there is an incredible amount of songs that are great even if some aspect of the song (being it the melody, the harmony, the rhythm, the lyrics, the arrangement, the sound) are bad or extremely uncreative, but that said if I have a bias is that I listen to music the same way I read a book or look for other art, I don't want just to find a beautiful song, movie or painting, but it's also an exploration and I want to discover something new (done in a way that feels necessary of course, I'm not talking about something that is new for the sake of being new), and not just seeing the repetion of the same formula again and again endlessly, because I don't think that's what art should do.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> my expectations are about creativity. As I've said, I perfectly know that there is an incredible amount of songs that are great even if some aspect of the song (being it the melody, the harmony, the rhythm, the lyrics, the arrangement, the sound) are bad or extremely uncreative, but that said if I have a bias is that I listen to music the same way I read a book or look for other art, I don't want just to find a beautiful song, movie or painting, but it's also an exploration and I want to discover something new (done in a way that feels necessary of course, I'm not talking about something that is new for the sake of being new), and not just seeing the repetion of the same formula again and again endlessly, because I don't think that's what art should do.


The art of songwriting is saying the same thing (there are a limited number of song subjects) in a new manner or unique perspective. Which is incredibly hard to do well. Adding complex harmony is just not enough. You can dress a dog in high couture but it is still a dog.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I am a fan of harmony, but I see it as one component of a song. For me the song is made up of melody, lyrics, and harmony (or more precisely *accompaniment*), all which create the mood and message the songwriter wants to communicate (*communication* is the point of a song). All of the ingredients must serve the communication of the song, and each one must enhance the mood and message. If the accompaniment is too complicated it can undercut the effectiveness of the mood and message of the lyrics and melody.
> 
> None of these aspects can be seen in the abstract, i.e. thinking that the more complex the harmony the better. Complex harmony has its place and is right for some songs, but more often than not a song is more successful with a balance between all the components.


I agree with this, altough I wonder if harmony (but also other aspects like rhythm) are in itself to a degree an acquired taste. Because for instance I remember that when at first I started to listen to bossanova or other kind of harmonically sophisticated music I often thought it sounded forced and unnecessarily clever and complicated. And obviously in certain cases any piece of music can be unnecessarily complicated, but I'm saying that on the same thing my perspective changed wildly while my appreciation and ability to understand harmony increased. So even the perception of what is necessary for the song to be effective can change through time. Also, I think that to use harmony (or rhyhtm, or sound etc) even as a device to make a song less direct can bring to results that maybe are less impactful and visceral at first but that bring to a superior reward with repeated listenings. Actually I'm starting to thing about the superiority of cerebral music compared to very emotional and visceral music considering my own experience where the latter can bring to "wow moments" but that loses in a much quicker way its shine, but that's another story.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I strongly disagree about this. The fact that there are without a doubt a huge amount of beautiful songs that are based on very banal progressions it's often due to the fact that as you were saying, there are other aspects in a song that can make it great. But in itself, repeating the same clichè after a billion of other songs is a way of composing that is indeed banal and not creative at all. I know you've never been a great fan of harmony (I remember our past discussions about this), but what if we would make the same assumptions about rhythm. Let's say, instead of the subtleties of swing, we replace it with the most banal and square rhythm possible. Of couse we would still have tons of great songs even with that trivial rhyhtm, but somebody would note that swing was an enrichment in terms of sophistication and creativity and the square rhythm is not the "hallmark of good rhyhtm".


Earlier I compared the focus on harmony to the focus on plots in films. You could make the same argument you're making here about harmony and apply it to film: "beautiful films are made on very banal plots... but repeating the same cliche after a billion of other films is a way of filmmaking that is... not creative at all." Yeah, tell that to someone like Yasujiro Ozu who reused several plots several times, and in which all of his plots play like minute variations on the a set of themes surrounding common domestic dramas... yet Ozu is often considered the greatest Japanese filmmakers (and one of the best ever) because of the elegant formalism he brought to his films: the symmetry and beauty of the visual compositions, the economy and fluidity of his editing, the patience of his pacing, the understated tone, the structural motifs... etc.

The same is very much true of music. There are so many other elements that can make music great besides harmony and it seems utterly myopic to focus so much on that one aspect, which is innately no more important than rhythm, melody, timbre, aesthetics, tone, emotion, etc. It was the constant pushing for new, original ideas in harmony (as well as following the innovations of composers like Wagner to their logical conclusion) that lead to the atonal innovations of the 20th century, and, regardless of what you think of those innovations, it's very clear that pop has never embraced it and has been using tonal ideas that, at best, are over a century old by now. So while I do think it's fine to say "I'd like to hear more sophisticated harmony in pop" as a personal aesthetic preference, I think it's rather silly when you start saying things like you're against cliches because their overuse isn't creative... as if pretty much all music that's still using tonality (as opposed to atonality) isn't, by some frame of reference, cliche by this point.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

pianozach said:


> I'm afraid to Google it, but I'll bet there was a *Punk Disco* genre.


To some extent, "punk disco" was the short lived No Wave scene, though the music was a bit more experimental than that. I actually like No Wave quite a bit, even though there's not many recordings of it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I can sympathize with this perspective, but if you're looking for greater harmonic complexity in song-form then I'd recommend exploring a genre like prog rock and art rock rather than pop. As I've said elsewhere, pop music has always been a simplification of whatever genres it was influenced by, and those genres change over time and tend to be whatever is new at the time. Right now it's mostly influenced by electronic music and hip-hop. That will undoubtedly change eventually, but whether or not harmonic complexity will return is anyone's guess.


One of the most interesting things about capital-P Pop really is just how omnivorous it is. There's this big history of upfiltering where subgenres become local and then "genre music" sensations, eventually becoming trendy enough to heavily influence pop music, and how successfully these trends are translated into consumable media can be fascinating.

For whatever reason it's easiest for me to see in terms of dance music- you saw relatively local scenes like Miami bass music, southern "trap" hip-hop and, unavoidably, dubstep consumed and blown up to massive scales by pop production.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Probably relevant to the topic: Eminent producer Quincy Jones acknowledged on several occasions that modern musicians lack formal musical knowledge, which is probably related to the increasingly simple harmonies:

https://www.vulture.com/2018/02/quincy-jones-in-conversation.html



> _ I'm trying to isolate what you specifically believe the problem with modern pop is. It's the lack of formal musical knowledge on the part of the musicians?
> *Yes! And they don't even care they don't have it.
> *
> _





> _
> 
> You're talking about business not music, but, and I mean this respectfully, don't some of your thoughts about music fall under the category of "back in my day"?
> 
> ...


Also very interesting: Classically trained producer Chilly Gonzales was hired by Daft Punk to compose a transition between two distant keys (which they apparently couldn't pull off themselves). I find his comment very interesting and agree with most of it:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/chilly-gonzales-explains-daft-punk-harmonies-241905/



> _
> "Generally, I'm looking to fulfill my specific musical function, which has to do mostly with harmony," Gonzales said, describing *harmony as an "underused musical weapon" in today's pop music.* "*It has the most strong emotional reaction despite the fact that there's so much science and math involved in it.* And yet it's largely the thing that will often make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up involuntarily." Gonzales surmised that mathematical knowledge was a key reason why the French duo sought him out.
> 
> _


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

When did Quincy Jones make those comments? Before or after his work with Michael Jackson? But no, that quote is not relevant since there are hundreds of great songwriters who could not read music, nor knew music theory, from Irving Berlin to Paul McCartney.

You still refuse to acknowledge the problem with your thinking about this issue.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Earlier I compared the focus on harmony to the focus on plots in films. You could make the same argument you're making here about harmony and apply it to film: "beautiful films are made on very banal plots... but repeating the same cliche after a billion of other films is a way of filmmaking that is... not creative at all." Yeah, tell that to someone like Yasujiro Ozu who reused several plots several times, and in which all of his plots play like minute variations on the a set of themes surrounding common domestic dramas... yet Ozu is often considered the greatest Japanese filmmakers (and one of the best ever) because of the elegant formalism he brought to his films: the symmetry and beauty of the visual compositions, the economy and fluidity of his editing, the patience of his pacing, the understated tone, the structural motifs... etc.
> 
> I don't think this contradicts in any way what I'm saying, since I've stated many times that I perfectly know that there are an incredible amount of songs that use a clichè or another and still are beautiful songs. That said, since I know that a brilliant creative harmony can do create completely different atmospheres and amazing results I don't like that fact that it's an often overlooked aspect. Actually I could say the same for melody, because in popular music to me there's been a tendency to go from very long and elaborate melodies (even at the beginning of the 20th century, with the songs of Pixinguinha to make an example, or Hoagy Carmichael's Stardust) to often very brief motifs.
> 
> ...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Inadvertently, I came across this on YT and thought it might be of interest here.
If you don't know how a modern song is written then this is for you. Four producers create different tracks with the same samples and walkthrough part of their process within the DAW. OK it's not about harmony specifically, but what it does show is the imagination and creativity involved when producing/composing in a DAW, resulting in individual and unique expressions working from given tools. The emphasis is decidely on digital block building and production value such is the modern way, but the result is music for these guys.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> Inadvertently, I came across this on YT and thought it might be of interest here.
> If you don't know how a modern song is written then this is for you. Four producers create different tracks with the same samples and walkthrough part of their process within the DAW. OK it's not about harmony specifically, but what it does show is the imagination and creativity involved when producing/composing in a DAW, resulting in individual and unique expressions working from given tools. The emphasis is decidely on digital block building and production value such is the modern way, but the result is music for these guys.


Wonderful example of what I've been talking about how studio technology is an area of creativity which did not exist during the GASB as well as the 60s and 70s both of which many people view as Golden Eras of Pop songwriting. Whether someone doesn't like or appreciate this kind of songwriting is irrelevant. What is important is that this is song artistry and the use of harmony is irrelevant.

We often see this criticism on TC which boils down to "new music is not like old music so it is not as good." This same criticism has been used against the Classical avant-garde and now new Pop music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> When did Quincy Jones make those comments? Before or after his work with Michael Jackson? But no, that quote is not relevant since there are hundreds of great songwriters who could not read music, nor knew music theory, from Irving Berlin to Paul McCartney.
> 
> You still refuse to acknowledge the problem with your thinking about this issue.


McCartney didn't know how to read but he certainly wrote songs with interesting harmomies. Also, about your last comment, while sample based music and sequencers are great tools that doesn't make in any way harmony irrelevant, one can use samples AND make interesting harmony.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> McCartney didn't know how to read but he certainly wrote songs with interesting harmomies. Also, about your last comment, while sample based music and sequencers are great tools that doesn't make in any way harmony irrelevant, one can use samples AND make interesting harmony.


Which proves my point (and why the quote from QJ was irrelevant) that knowing how to read music or music theory, or lack thereof, does not correlate with a songwriter's use of harmony, melody, etc.

Regarding your last sentence, someone once said about James Brown he may not have been a great conventional songwriter, but he made conventional songwriting irrelevant.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I don't think this contradicts in any way what I'm saying, since I've stated many times that I perfectly know that there are an incredible amount of songs that use a clichè or another and still are beautiful songs. That said, since I know that a brilliant creative harmony can do create completely different atmospheres and amazing results I don't like that fact that it's an often overlooked aspect. Actually I could say the same for melody, because in popular music to me there's been a tendency to go from very long and elaborate melodies (even at the beginning of the 20th century, with the songs of Pixinguinha to make an example, or Hoagy Carmichael's Stardust) to often very brief motifs.
> 
> but I think we already agreed about the fact that harmony is not the only important aspect.


But isn't the same true of every possible musical technique, and wouldn't it be true that every genre focuses on certain musical qualities while (relatively) ignoring others? I mean, the one thing that prevents me from abandoning rock/pop and jazz for classical permanently is the fact that most pre-20th century classical is typically quite boring rhythmically. Of course there are a handful of exceptions, but probably 90% or more of pre-20th century classical is either in 4/4, 3/4, or a similar sub-division. You don't find much in exotic meters, or much use of syncopation, nor do you find almost any works that primarily focus on rhythm over harmony or melody the way you can find plenty examples of in 20th century pop/rock (especially prog rock and metal). Similar to what you say about how creative harmony can create completely different atmospheres with amazing results, I'd say the same of interesting rhythms, especially when they're played be virtuoso drummers like Neil Peart or Danny Carey. The trance-like patterns Carey can create with his tribalistic polyrhythms that can erupt into powerful climaxes by using different drums, patterns, and contrasting meters is something you don't see in any pre-20th century classical (and not much post-20th century classical).

I think this example is just my way of saying that this elevation or deemphasis of different musical qualities is, in large part, what makes various genres and sub-genres unique and uniquely valuable. The same is true of pop music. Yes, perhaps harmony has become less of a focal point in modern pop music, or at least modern top 40; but plenty of things have taken its place for songwriters to be creative with, especially production, which relative to harmony is an extremely new and unexplored field. It's not surprising that new artists focus on new tools for being creative in new ways. That's how art-forms tend to progress rather than just retreading the same ground.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> When did Quincy Jones make those comments? Before or after his work with Michael Jackson? But no, that quote is not relevant since there are hundreds of great songwriters who could not read music, nor knew music theory, from Irving Berlin to Paul McCartney.


The Quote is from 2018.

And the Beatles actually DID know quite a bit of music theory. Here is an interesting video that proves it:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> The Quote is from 2018.
> 
> And the Beatles actually DID know quite a bit of music theory. Here is an interesting video that proves it:


The quote is even more irrelevant.

That video only proves that the Beatles were talented and had good instincts for writing songs. The fact is that none of them could read music or had musical education regarding music theory.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Which proves my point (and why the quote from QJ was irrelevant) that knowing how to read music or music theory, or lack thereof, does not correlate with a songwriter's use of harmony, melody, etc.
> 
> Regarding your last sentence, someone once said about James Brown he may not have been a great conventional songwriter, but he made conventional songwriting irrelevant.


I totally disagree with that sentence even if I like funk music (and even in funk, there are musicians who have made great things with harmony, from Stevie Wonder to the City pop movement). 
Again, there's a lot of pop music that uses melody, harmony or rhythm in extremely basic ways and it works great. 
But that doesn't make any of those aspects irrelevant, I tend to prefer to see progress as inclusive of the good things of the past instead of seeing new art as something that has to necessarily tie any connection with the past. To say that James Brown made conventional songwriting irrelevant reminds me of things like important art critics saying that all figurative art from the beginning of the 20th century is useless and every painting should be abstract or Boulez saying that all musicians not into serialism were also equally useless. That's the kind of radicalism that to me seems completely arbitrary.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> But isn't the same true of every possible musical technique, and wouldn't it be true that every genre focuses on certain musical qualities while (relatively) ignoring others? I mean, the one thing that prevents me from abandoning rock/pop and jazz for classical permanently is the fact that most pre-20th century classical is typically quite boring rhythmically. Of course there are a handful of exceptions, but probably 90% or more of pre-20th century classical is either in 4/4, 3/4, or a similar sub-division. You don't find much in exotic meters, or much use of syncopation, nor do you find almost any works that primarily focus on rhythm over harmony or melody the way you can find plenty examples of in 20th century pop/rock (especially prog rock and metal). Similar to what you say about how creative harmony can create completely different atmospheres with amazing results, I'd say the same of interesting rhythms, especially when they're played be virtuoso drummers like Neil Peart or Danny Carey. The trance-like patterns Carey can create with his tribalistic polyrhythms that can erupt into powerful climaxes by using different drums, patterns, and contrasting meters is something you don't see in any pre-20th century classical (and not much post-20th century classical). .


look I agree with a lot of what you're saying but the fact with common practice classical music (were also non functional harmony, atonality and polytonality didnt' exist) is that they weren't excluding or forgetting interesting rhythms, it was just that in that world rhythm was a lot less developed at that point (altough there were composers like Chopin using interesting polyrhythms). And as someone who loves to hear interesting rhythms and also non functional harmony I still feel the lack of those things, even if there's common practice music that I love.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think this example is just my way of saying that this elevation or deemphasis of different musical qualities is, in large part, what makes various genres and sub-genres unique and uniquely valuable. The same is true of pop music. Yes, perhaps harmony has become less of a focal point in modern pop music, or at least modern top 40; but plenty of things have taken its place for songwriters to be creative with, especially production, which relative to harmony is an extremely new and unexplored field. It's not surprising that new artists focus on new tools for being creative in new ways. That's how art-forms tend to progress rather than just retreading the same ground.


the thing for me is that while classical and jazz have explored harmony in great depth, I feel that pop music, even if there are very sophisticated songs can still push a lot in that direction. And about the "that's how art-forms tend to progress" I disagree for the reason I've said in my previous reply to SanAntone. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see why progress should not include the great things of the past. It's a completely arbitrary way of thinking that at worse looks more like dogs marking the territory than anything else. Harmony (like melody, rhythm or sound) is one of the fundamental aspects of music, it doesn't become anachronistic just because there's a trend in a certain direction.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I totally disagree with that sentence even if I like funk music (and even in funk, there are musicians who have made great things with harmony, from Stevie Wonder to the City pop movement).
> Again, there's a lot of pop music that uses melody, harmony or rhythm in extremely basic ways and it works great.
> But that doesn't make any of those aspects irrelevant, I tend to prefer to see progress as inclusive of the good things of the past instead of seeing new art as something that has to necessarily tie any connection with the past. To say that James Brown made conventional songwriting irrelevant reminds me of things like important art critics saying that all figurative art from the beginning of the 20th century is useless and every painting should be abstract or Boulez saying that all musicians not into serialism were also equally useless. That's the kind of radicalism that to me seems completely arbitrary.


You misunderstood what I wrote. I never have said that harmony is irrelevant, but that it is also not the most important aspect of Pop songs as the OP has claimed. I don't think it was ever the most important aspect of songwriting, but just one. Harmony is a *subordinate* component to melody and lyrics which are the primary components of a song. A song can be performed without any harmony and still be complete. Harmony of a song by itself is not a song.

So harmony is one aspect of a Pop song which over time has been exercised in a complex and a simple manner depending upon the style of the song. We have today songs with advanced harmony as well as songs with little harmonic development.

The quote about James Brown was used to illustrate how far Pop music has developed away from the standards of the GASB as well as Pop music of the 60s. They were not my words and used hyperbole to make a point I think is important.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I have been active in this thread because songwriting has been an important part of my life both at the professional level and as a fan of the craft of songwriting. 

I've made what I think are important points countering the claim of the OP. But at this point I sense that I have nothing more to add to the arguments I've made and in order to avoid repeating myself I will let y'all continue to slug it out without my input.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I don't think it was ever the most important aspect of songwriting, but just one. Harmony is a *subordinate* component to melody and lyrics which are the primary components of a song. A song can be performed without any harmony and still be complete. Harmony of a song by itself is not a song.


You overlook that melody and harmony are actually dependent on each other. This is something that Beato has also explained in the OP video. The notes of the melody and chords actually have to fit with each other, that's why complex chord progressions can lead to more complex melodies. For example, if all the chords belong to the same key,as is common in modern pop, then the melody is usually also restricted to the 7 notes of the key. On the other hand, if the chord progressions also contains chromaticism, modulations, etc.. then there is a much broader variety of melodic options open to the composer, as one isn't restricted to just the notes of one scale.

I know that this thread is technically about harmony, but I think this issue is also intrinsically connected to melody. 
You can't just say "I don't care about the harmonies in my music, as I'm focused on creating interesting melodies", as the sophistication of a melody is significantly dependent on its supporting harmonies and vice versa.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Not sure if people really care much about harmony in pop and rock, I would focus on rock because pop is a much naive genre so the controversy about it is also not up to my consideration about harmony. Rock music has strong textures, that is sure, therefore harmony could be a major factor in it, with guitar, drum, electronics adding to the texture of it making a dense tapestry of accoustics. Human voice therefore, play a much different role in rock than those in classical and other lighter genres like pop, you will notice that voices like in Led Zeppelin and Bowie, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, are androgynous, the penetrating quality of this type of voice is to be stood out from the modern accoustic tapestry and making the music imposing and characteristic. 

Human voice is no longer the main voice in rock, but like a personification of all those modern instruments: to humanize them. The effects of this approach will be the contrasts between androgynous vocals and heavy instruments, simple melodic vocal lines and broken passages of instrumental lines and beats. The contrast plays the major role in rock, modern instruments are equally the protagonistic as the vocalist in this effect; secondly, the humanization of the heavy instrumentations with the penetrating and androgynous human voice: glorification of the whole complex tonality and texture of the modern sound world with human sentimental and vocal arts. After all, like a dive into the effects of human voices through the help of more modern musical instruments.

This is why sometimes, coarse voice can also sing in a rock context, the whole instrumentation in the background will make up for almost all the vocal defects we take for inadequate in the past, however, a new wonder will come out from this effect not just making up for coarse and bad voices, a psychological impact. This type of impact is new hitherto, it not only ignores the basic defects of human voices, but also pays extra reward to those better and more characteristic voices too, making ever more imposing. This is a wonder I discover from rock music, totally different criteria for a good voice, different depth of sentimental content, different ways of contrast between human vocal and instrumental forces. Overall, the tolerance of the non-existence of harmony show the resilience of the genre, rock has a great elasticity in this term, thus worthy of appreciation.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

There might be something in the idea that digital sound blocks in a DAW are somehow acting as a new functionality, replacing the role of harmony as a key driver. For example so called 'risers' are often audio samples of percussive crescendos (typically a cymbal roll but also perhaps a string section fast scale, a synth swell or similar), that can replace other traditional and technical (on the ms that is), methods that achieve crescendo. Similarly, looped samples, riffs etc. provide pedal type functionality that is often heard. Emphasis on musical progression _in actual sound_ is at least as much, if not more so, the deciding creative factor that influences the course of a song for some writers, rather than something like a harmonic progression that might say increase in rhythm or chromaticism as it moves towards a climactic moment.

The DAW represents a new kind of 'orchestration', one that although different in many respects, still adheres to much in the way of basic scoring principles, such as timbre, combination, density, foreground, background etc. albeit via different means. Music created in a studio post seqeuncing and sampling is of a different kind of complexity compared to earlier times. It has it's own ways and language, just as it should have, with much of the focus and expression being driven by the immediacy of hands on sound.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> look I agree with a lot of what you're saying but the fact with common practice classical music (were also non functional harmony, atonality and polytonality didnt' exist) is that they weren't excluding or forgetting interesting rhythms, it was just that in that world rhythm was a lot less developed at that point (altough there were composers like Chopin using interesting polyrhythms). And as someone who loves to hear interesting rhythms and also non functional harmony I still feel the lack of those things, even if there's common practice music that I love.
> 
> the thing for me is that while classical and jazz have explored harmony in great depth, I feel that pop music, even if there are very sophisticated songs can still push a lot in that direction. And about the "that's how art-forms tend to progress" I disagree for the reason I've said in my previous reply to SanAntone. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see why progress should not include the great things of the past. It's a completely arbitrary way of thinking that at worse looks more like dogs marking the territory than anything else. Harmony (like melody, rhythm or sound) is one of the fundamental aspects of music, it doesn't become anachronistic just because there's a trend in a certain direction.


I don't feel like we're disagreeing terribly much here. I think my general point is that it's always possible to look at any genre of music and think "I wish it focused on X musical aspect more," but I just don't find that kind of thinking very useful. As I said, genres are valuable in large part because they focus on different things. I am not saying that progress necessarily means abandoning things like sophisticated harmonies, merely that it's not surprising that within progress older aspects that used to receive a lot of focus (like harmony) are being deemphasized to focus on newer aspects.

It's a general principle of art that contrast is required for certain aspects of creation to standout, but if you crank every slider to 10 (complex harmony, melody, rhythm, timbres/sounds, etc.) what you tend to end up with is a mess rather than a great work of art. So when artists want to explore a certain aspect and make that aspect stand out, as modern pop frequently does with its timbres and vocal hooks, other elements are there to play a supportive role rather than a primary driving one. Throughout most of the history of western music harmony was, in large part, the primary driving force. This resulted in some phenomenal music, but music that was innately limited by the aspects it chose to simplify in order to focus on harmony.

Modern pop is no different in that respect. While I certainly think it possible to make great pop music that does feature sophisticated harmonies I merely think that because of the points of emphasis within pop it's rarely necessary. There are only a handful of pop bands/artists that I listen to and think they would be improved by greater harmonic sophistication; and I mostly think that because it would help with giving them more "color" to their sound (similar to how Messiaen thought of harmony as color).


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Is there a pop songwriter writing one way to generate Top 40 hits but a different way entirely for a side-project? I can't think of any examples. Without any examples, I don't know how you're going to argue that this target demographic is somehow informing the choices songwriters frequently in the top 40 make, nor how it's limiting them.


I definitely know examples of songwriters who simplify their music for the Top 40.
One example is producer Greg Kurstin, who wrote several hits for Adele such as "Hello", that fit the simplified approach I described in the OP.

He also has his own Indie Pop band "The Bird and the Bee", that is harmonically quite inventive (possibly owing to the fact that Kurstin was originally a Jazz musician).

Adele:





Bird and the Bee:





Needless to say The bird and the bee is nowhere as popular as Adele (their most popular song has only 1,6million views on youtube, Adele has 2,9 Billion!)

So I think it's obvious that Greg Kurstin deliberately limited the musical language of his work with Adele, in order to appeal to a broader audience.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

^ Given the above example, my next question would be (which is probably impossible to answer by anyone except the songwriter himself) whether one is more difficult to write than the other. Though this doesn't necessarily prove anything I think one bias is that because it requires more learning to write more harmonically complex music it must, ipso facto, be more challenging to write too. I have severe doubts about this bias though, and suspect that it's probably far more challenging to write hit songs with such massive appeal.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't feel like we're disagreeing terribly much here. I think my general point is that it's always possible to look at any genre of music and think "I wish it focused on X musical aspect more," but I just don't find that kind of thinking very useful. As I said, genres are valuable in large part because they focus on different things. I am not saying that progress necessarily means abandoning things like sophisticated harmonies, merely that it's not surprising that within progress older aspects that used to receive a lot of focus (like harmony) are being deemphasized to focus on newer aspects.
> 
> It's a general principle of art that contrast is required for certain aspects of creation to standout, but if you crank every slider to 10 (complex harmony, melody, rhythm, timbres/sounds, etc.) what you tend to end up with is a mess rather than a great work of art. So when artists want to explore a certain aspect and make that aspect stand out, as modern pop frequently does with its timbres and vocal hooks, other elements are there to play a supportive role rather than a primary driving one. Throughout most of the history of western music harmony was, in large part, the primary driving force. This resulted in some phenomenal music, but music that was innately limited by the aspects it chose to simplify in order to focus on harmony.
> 
> Modern pop is no different in that respect. While I certainly think it *possible to make great pop music that does feature sophisticated harmonies *I merely think that because of the points of emphasis within pop it's rarely necessary. There are only a handful of pop bands/artists that I listen to and think they would be improved by greater harmonic sophistication; and I mostly think that because it would help with giving them more "color" to their sound (similar to how Messiaen thought of harmony as color).


*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steely Dan*?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

pianozach said:


> *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steely Dan*?


One example, certainly. Also in my top 20 artists/bands of all time.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Forster said:


> Thanks for the article. It's useful. The problem for me is that there are far too many variables, to the extent that we simply can't show we're comparing like with like. The recording, production and distribution of music has changed. The genres of music have diversified. The artists themselves come and go. The way sales are measured has changed, and so the kinds of artists in the Top 40 in 2021 (we've barely got in to2022) are not the same kinds of artists who were in the Top 40 in 1961, or 1971...
> 
> *Now, if you could study the music of one single artist over 40 years, you could probably show how their songs have evolved and confirm or deny a deterioration in harmonic complexity, but whether that could be used as a proxy indicator for the whole of pop (broad or narrow) is doubtful.
> *
> ...


You can, and many have: *Paul McCartney* . . . writing music from the very late 1950s right up to 2020s. 70 years.

His songs are diverse, and have varying levels of "harmonic complexity", although that would be a constant over time, not a development. He's always explored all sorts of ways to have complexity in songs.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> You can, and many have: *Paul McCartney* . . . writing music from the very late 1950s right up to 2020s. 70 years.
> 
> His songs are diverse, and have varying levels of "harmonic complexity", although that would be a constant over time, not a development. He's always explored all sorts of ways to have complexity in songs.


LOL.

My second time answering the same comment.

This thread is rather interesting given that many of the disagreements come about because of a lack of common definitions of the terms of the discussion. Phrases like "pop music" have meanings so vague and diverse that many have attempted to make distinctions like *"pop music" vs. "Pop Music"*(with a capital "P"), or *"pop" vs. "popular"*, or narrowing the scope of the discussion with phrases like *"Top 40 Pop Music"*.

Many point out that *"popular music"* goes back to the 1910s (or perhaps further).

Even stranger to me is that when the OP points out that "harmony" has become less complex over the years and decades, many seem to confuse *"harmony"* with *"harmonic progressions"*.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianozach said:


> You can, and many have:


Well, yes, I know it _can _be done...but has it _been _done? If so, where are the outcomes of the research.

That still leaves the bit from my challenge unanswered - that one artist could hardly be a proxy indicator for the "harmonic progression" of the whole of Pop/pop/popular music from, say, the 1950s to the present day.

The fact is that I have yet to come across any member here (in these discussions I mean) who has the breadth of knowledge of _both_ past _and _current Pop/pop/popular music AND the technical knowledge to examine the harmonies/harmonic progression and come up with an evidence based response.

The discussion invariably fizzles out because the anti-pop can't speak about much beyond the pop they object to; and the pro-pop resort to artists from the 70s or earlier and get lost in the "but prog isn't pop" rebuttal.

A while ago, I posted the names of the 100 artists on the bill at a well known UK "pop" festival. I challenged the OP to try to find out more about the diversity and quality of music on offer. Needless to say, they declined the challenge.

Here's another one.

https://www.greenman.net/line-up/2022/

Now when all these have been sampled and proven to play music that is less harmonically adventurous than pop "back in the day", I'll give the OP's claims some serious thought.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> The fact is that I have yet to come across any member here (in these discussions I mean) who has the breadth of knowledge of both past and current Pop/pop/popular music AND the technical knowledge to examine the harmonies/harmonic progression and come up with an evidence based response.


I know why I haven't done something like this, I don't want to spend the time to research the artists and then formulate a cogent, well-reasoned, and documented post because

1) this forum is mainly for entertainment, not work; 
2) probably it would go unanswered; 
3) the OP would be unfazed and continue to make his biased posts; oh, and the most important, 
4) I simply don't care what the OP thinks.

IOW a waste of time.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I know why I haven't done something like this, I don't want to spend the time to research the artists and then formulate a cogent, well-reasoned, and documented post because
> 
> 1) this forum is mainly for entertainment, not work;
> 2) probably it would go unanswered;
> ...


Well, yes, of course. I don't want to either. I'm only elaborating on what would need to be done to begin to provide evidence to support the OP's claims.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I know why I haven't done something like this, I don't want to spend the time to research the artists and then formulate a cogent, well-reasoned, and documented post because
> 
> 1) this forum is mainly for entertainment, not work;
> 2) probably it would go unanswered;
> ...


3, I think.



Forster said:


> Well, yes, of course. I don't want to either. I'm only elaborating on what would need to be done to begin to provide evidence to support the OP's claims.


There is no one, nor any opinion that will satisfy your request as stated.

There is no way to set up a scientific double-blind study that would have any merit, as "harmony" in "pop music is an inherently ephemeral trait of music. I get it - you're simply trying to snap your suspenders, pull out your pocket watch, complain that cars don't have windwings any more, and whine about how today's music sucks. Old story.

Music is an art, and many things about the many styles and genres of music can be quantified in any way that will make you happy.

Complexity doesn't necessarily make music "Better", nor does simplicity mean it sucks.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianozach said:


> 3, I think.
> 
> There is no one, nor any opinion that will satisfy your request as stated.
> 
> ...


_My _request ?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Forster said:


> _My _request ?


Well, mostly the OP's request (Chipia)

But, also yours:



Forster said:


> Well, yes, I know it _can _be done...but has it _been _done? If so, where are the outcomes of the research.
> 
> That still leaves the bit from *my challenge* unanswered - *that one artist could hardly be a proxy indicator for the "harmonic progression" of the whole of Pop/pop/popular music from, say, the 1950s to the present day.
> *
> The fact is that I have yet to come across any member here (in these discussions I mean) who has the breadth of knowledge of _both_ past _and _current Pop/pop/popular music AND the technical knowledge to examine the harmonies/harmonic progression and come up with an evidence based response.


But, _*sorry*_. Didn't mean it in the way it sounds.

Besides, I think I may have clicked on the wrong REPLY WITH QUOTE comment. We're actually in agreement.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> https://www.greenman.net/line-up/2022/
> 
> Now when all these have been sampled and proven to play music that is less harmonically adventurous than pop "back in the day", I'll give the OP's claims some serious thought.


I may look into it deeper when I have time, but I think we have already found some pretty damning evidence in this thread:
- This study analysed 464.000 recordings between 1955-2010 and came to the conclusion that pop music has become more harmonically simple. I think that's the most objective evidence we have so far
- Several Pop Producers who are immersed in the industry acknowledged this phenomenon, including Rick Beato and Chilly Gonzales
- Pop producers like Greg Kurstin write in a simplistic harmonic style for big artists like Adele, and reserve their somewhat more inventive songs for obscure side projects. Earlier artists like Beatles or Stevie Wonder somehow didn't have to do this.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> I may look into it deeper when I have time, but I think we have already found some pretty damning evidence in this thread:
> - This study analysed 464.000 recordings between 1955-2010 and came to the conclusion that pop music has become more harmonically simple. I think that's the most objective evidence we have so far
> - Several Pop Producers who are immersed in the industry acknowledged this phenomenon, including Rick Beato and Chilly Gonzales
> - Pop producers like Greg Kurstin write in a simplistic harmonic style for big artists like Adele, and reserve their somewhat more inventive songs for obscure side projects. Earlier artists like Beatles or Stevie Wonder somehow didn't have to do this.


Yes, see the discussion following post #36 when the study was previously referenced.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

No matter how simple or complex, a song can be either good or bad. It's not about chords, it's about imagination and creativity. These days I've decided to listen to songs that are big hits in the US and UK mostly. Some 10% of those 100 songs I would give a rating 5 or 6 out of 10. The rest is mostly horrific. It all sounds the same. It's some mix of rap with pop and the overall feel is non-human and toxic and everything really sounds the same. Melodies are banal, minimalistic and simply bad. Chords are hardly there. Even if they are, it's still horrible and derivative. 
You simply can't compare anything today with great hits back then in 80s for example like Take on Me by A-Ha, Come on Eileen by Dexy's, I Guess That's Why They Call It the Blues by Elton John, Self Control by Laura Branigan, Falling by Julee Cruise, Africa by Toto, One Day I'll Fly Away by Randy Crawford etc. 
Pop music has been progressively getting worse since the mid 90's, but these days... such horror even I wouldn't have expected 10 years ago. Modern pop is so bad that it is beyond words to describe it. There's no traces of soul or creativity in that music. How can anyone like that crap and pay for it is beyond my comprehension.
I really think the problem is hunger for profit and this wild consumerist society. Money finally managed to destroy music and brainwash young people who think that they actually like that crap. Even Eminem looks like Beethoven and 'Barbie Girl' sounds like a piece of art compared to what's on charts today.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> No matter how simple or complex, a song can be either good or bad. It's not about chords, it's about imagination and creativity. These days I've decided to listen to songs that are big hits in the US and UK mostly. Some 10% of those 100 songs I would give a rating 5 or 6 out of 10. The rest is mostly horrific. It all sounds the same. It's some mix of rap with pop and the overall feel is non-human and toxic and everything really sounds the same. Melodies are banal, minimalistic and simply bad. Chords are hardly there. Even if they are, it's still horrible and derivative.
> You simply can't compare anything today with great hits back then in 80s for example like Take on Me by A-Ha, Come on Eileen by Dexy's, I Guess That's Why They Call It the Blues by Elton John, Self Control by Laura Branigan, Falling by Julee Cruise, Africa by Toto, One Day I'll Fly Away by Randy Crawford etc.
> Pop music has been progressively getting worse since the mid 90's, but these days... such horror even I wouldn't have expected 10 years ago. Modern pop is so bad that it is beyond words to describe it. There's no traces of soul or creativity in that music. How can anyone like that crap and pay for it is beyond my comprehension.
> I really think the problem is hunger for profit and this wild consumerist society. Money finally managed to destroy music and brainwash young people who think that they actually like that crap. Even Eminem looks like Beethoven and 'Barbie Girl' sounds like a piece of art compared to what's on charts today.


Pardon me while I repeat myself: Yes, there's a lot of crap pop music out there today. Pick any decade and there was a lot of crap pop music in that decade.

Of course, you can pick any decade, including the last ten years, and there has been some great pop music.

Here's five from the 2010s:

Mark Ronson - *Uptown Funk* ft. Bruno Mars (2014)

Timeless and fresh. This could have come out in any decade from the 1950s to the 1990s.






Taylor Swift - *willow*

Simple, catchy, deep. I like *Swift* - she's a musician, and writes the vast majority of her released output. 0% drugs, 0% alcohol, 0% bad language, 0% insults, 100% talent.

I picked "willow" from her, but almost picked *We Are Never Getting Back Together*, a very clever set of lyrics set against some perfectly crafted pop music, or _*Mr. Perfect*_, another pop gem.






Gotye - *Somebody That I Used To Know* (feat. Kimbra)

This subtly complex duet about the end of a relationship as seen from dueling viewpoints is a masterpiece.






Portugal. The Man - *Feel It Still*

A very efficient pop song. Pure pop.






And, from 2010, Adele: *Rolling in the Deep*

I could have just as easily picked Hello, which packs an equal amount of drama. Or Set Fire to the Rain.






And an Honorable Mention: *Imagine Dragons - Radioactive*


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Pardon me while I repeat myself: Yes, there's a lot of crap pop music out there today. Pick any decade and there was a lot of crap pop music in that decade.
> 
> Of course, you can pick any decade, including the last ten years, and there has been some great pop music.
> 
> ...


'Uptown Funk' is style over substance. Sure, there was such music back in the 80s, but this would be at bottom for me, even then.

'Willow' is pretty much a generic pop song - nothing special.

'Somebody That I Used to Know' is probably one song that is more creative and doesn't represent at all charts in the last 10 years.

'Feel It Still' is at the same time kinda catchy, yet derivative and nothing special.

'Rolling in the Deep' - yeah, that's a great song and I knew it was great many months before the majority of people even knew the song existed.

'Radioactive' is rubbish.

Even if we disregard that you managed to show now that the 80s were by light years better, you missed the main point. Back in the 80s the majority of songs that managed to chart were much better, more complex, more creative and many of those songs had that spark and magic that doesn't exist anymore. Do I need to mention that they had more interesting and complex harmonies and melodies? Do I need to mention that even less complex songs back then were much better than more complex pop songs these days!?
So, even if you found 6 more decent songs from the last 10 years that managed to reach the charts, that still doesn't change the fact that in the 80s there were hundreds and hundreds of hit songs much better than those 5 songs you posted here. Even if those 5 songs are good as greatest pop songs during the 80s (which they aren't) they don't represent the true horror on the charts these days. Music on charts wasn't slightly better in the 80s. It's not just 'subjective feeling'. Music was simply way better. Not all of the music.. .there was always crap out there, but majority of songs were more impactful, they had more personality, more color, music was more creative, bold, more melodic etc.

Some people obviously listen to so many structurally 'different' and 'unique' music out there, that they're not even able to recognize the difference anymore between good and bad pop song, no matter how complex or simple it may be. Music lost everything it was back then.

Yes, I heard pop charts today and it's not crap - it's disaster!

This was on charts in the 80s:











This is on the charts now:











Unfortunately, I have ears, so there is nothing that will convince me that this crap on charts today is actually of the same quality as music on the charts during the 80s or even 20 years ago.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

From 'newer' stuff (2010), Cee Lo Green is talented and fun... this was a brilliant pop album and not some lame and sterile half baked crap as usual... he also has great vocals and knows how to sing. Plus brilliant production!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> 'Radioactive' is rubbish.


Well that told us all. Opinion (yours at any rate) is king.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> Well that told us all. Opinion (yours at any rate) is king.


To like a song with lame chords/melody also says a lot about those who like that. I could compose something like that in my sleep. You don't need to put effort in something generic like that. It's lazy songwriting/composing. Mediocre song at best.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I also don't think that every pop-rock-rap song that reaches the charts should be brilliant, but it still should offer some type of quality. 99.99% of the music today on the charts is a direct result of hunger for profit. No matter how good you are, nobody will play your song unless you have a ton of money. It is the pinnacle of soulless and money grabbing capitalist 'philosophy'. They decided that horrible music is a 'trend' because it's easy to make such music. It's a toxic and artificial world that we're all living in. In the mid 90s they started to destroy music when they decided that their target audience were little children who didn't have a clue how music sounded even 5 years prior they were exposed to crap. Children were easily brainwashed with derivative boy bend music and minimalistic and repetitive dance. Even that was brilliant compared to the charts today. In 2000 from many owners of the radio stations it all came down suddenly to only 5 of the owners of all radio stations (at least that's what Rick Beato said if I remember correctly). They destroyed many genres, so they could feed us with crap while selling us the philosophy that 'all music is equally good, only tastes are different'. That's how they woke (brainwashed) people and ruined the music.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> To like a song with lame chords/melody also says a lot about those who like that. I could compose something like that in my sleep. You don't need to put effort in something generic like that. It's lazy songwriting/composing. Mediocre song at best.


I have no opinion on the song. I've not listened to it. I have no intention of listening to it. It's not aimed at me. Why spend time criticising something that I don't need to consume?

If I have concerns that those for whom it is intended will be harmed by listening to it, dismissing it as "rubbish" will convince no-one of the value of my judgement.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> I have no opinion on the song. I've not listened to it. I have no intention of listening to it. It's not aimed at me. Why spend time criticising something that I don't need to consume?
> 
> If I have concerns that those for whom it is intended will be harmed by listening to it, dismissing it as "rubbish" will convince no-one of the value of my judgement.


So, I actually gave many arguments about music here, but you felt called to comment on only one word that wasn't detailed enough in describing something? What exactly do you want to say? What is your contribution to this thread anyway to comment on the word 'rubbish' and disregarding everything else I said here?
Word 'rubbish' wasn't meant to influence other people. It's my personal opinion. 'Rubbish' may be too harsh for that mediocre song, but I guess that I can say whatever I want to say, right!?

If you don't agree with my views, you should find better arguments considering the topic.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> So, I actually gave many arguments about music here, but you felt called to comment on only one word that wasn't detailed enough in describing something?


I chose an extract from your post that seemed to represent what you were saying about 'pop music today' overall, in all your posts in this thread.



nikola said:


> What is your contribution to this thread anyway to comment on the word 'rubbish' and disregarding everything else I said here?


My contribution - like yours - is made over a number of posts. Like you, I'm not obliged to pay attention to every word posted.



nikola said:


> I guess that I can say whatever I want to say, right!?


Of course you can. And I can agree or disagree in whatever way I choose too, yes?



nikola said:


> If you don't agree with my views, you should find better arguments considering the topic.


Well I'll agree that my last two posts were not my finest, but they seemed an appropriate response to yours. You're not keen on pop music of the 2020s and you say so in a variety of dismissive and hyperbolic ways. What's to argue?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> To like a song with lame chords/melody also says a lot about those who like that. I could compose something like that in my sleep.


One could make millions of dollars. But despite being confident you could write a chart-topping Pop song, you don't do it? What is it? You don't like money?

Actually, I think it is because in actuality you don't have what it takes to do it. You could never do it no matter how hard you tried. Because if you could, you would be doing it, making gobs of money. No, because you can't do it you denigrate those who can.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

nikola said:


> To like a song with lame chords/melody also says a lot about those who like that.


How are they any worse than people who are not into any kind of music in general.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> I chose an extract from your post that seemed to represent what you were saying about 'pop music today' overall, in all your posts in this thread.
> 
> My contribution - like yours - is made over a number of posts. Like you, I'm not obliged to pay attention to every word posted.
> 
> ...


There is nothing hyperbolic about today's horrible pop music. Instead to prove why today's music doesn't actually suck and to prove that it actually didn't only become a cheap product to make a profit (in worse manner than ever before), you're talking about how my arguments aren't actually arguments because you say so. Oh, really?!
There you have Rick Beato, a producer and music teacher on Youtube, also claiming that pop music today is mostly simplistic, derivative and simply bad compared with music from a few decades ago.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> How are they any worse than people who say they're not into any kind of music in general.


I didn't say they're worse than anyone.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)




----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Even the great Rick Beato concedes...



> This is a sophisticated arrangement you just don't find in popular music today. Not to say that it isn't out there, but it just isn't at the top of the charts.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...iscusses-the-past-and-future-of-popular-music

As I have consistently maintained, 'pop' music can't be confined to that which is top of the charts...or that which the anti-pop define as that which they think is horrible.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> Even the great Rick Beato concedes...
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...iscusses-the-past-and-future-of-popular-music
> 
> As I have consistently maintained, 'pop' music can't be confined to that which is top of the charts...or that which the anti-pop define as that which they think is horrible.


I'm talking about charts because crap on charts influences everything else. I never heard interesting pop melodies and harmonies after 80s in 80s wannabe sounding songs. I heard great songs on top of the chart in the last 20 years, but songs were getting worse over time. Even indie music wasn't that interesting that hipsters were pretending it to be. Melodies and chords became outdated because it's easy to make derivative pop music without interesting musical ideas. Maybe illegal downloading of music started all that, but something certainly changed to worse after 2000.

I'm sure that many will agree that artists like Amy Winehouse, Mark Ronson (producer and songwriter), Cee Lo Green, Adele, Brandi Carlile, St. Vincent etc. are (were) certainly a notch above many crappy 'artists' we have today on the charts. I'm not saying there isn't good music out there for which you must dig hard to find.... I'm saying that what we have on the top 100 Billboard today is a disaster beyond comprehension.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

In the video I posted above, Rick is talking about complexity in chords, but that's not the only problem. I really think the problem is that nobody tries anymore to create anything meaningful. You can create with most common 3 or 4 chords beautiful and inspiring music or you can simply make everything to sound lame and the same and like it came out from the same mould. When you hear 10 songs and you can't hear any significant difference between those and you can't remember after 1 minute how all those songs sounded - that's the problem. Such songs are derivative and they also use ON PURPOSE the same approach because people will find those same music tricks more familiar because they heard those many times before. They're really making products, not music. 
It wasn't like that in the 80s. The 80s, like any other decade, had its trends and sounds that we can recognize as 'so 80s', but that's not the same thing as what we have today on the charts.

How Elton John was able to have one or more top 40 hits every year from 1970 until 2000!? How did he manage to create hits that actually meant something? Because he was creative, he was using unique chords, his songs are mostly not simplistic and even with more predictable chords he was able to compose classics like 'Rocket Man'. He feels music, he always tries to compose something that will make people pay attention. He uses unique chords, he uses inverted chords, he create unique melodies... his music may sound somehow simple and easy to do, but it's not. Even Enya is pretty simplistic, but with many layers of vocals she created something dreamy and something new, almost like a new genre. She knew how to compose something that can stand on its own. Back then in the 80s, people were creative in many different ways. If you hated Enya because she was 'dreamy new agey crap' to you, you could listen to The Beatles, Van Halen, Depeche Mode, Bjork, Suzanne Vega, Dire Straits, AC-DC, ZZ Top or anything that suits your taste better. Top charts gave us many choices. Today, they give us nothing.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Let's take a time out given the tone of the discussion. The thread is now closed (temporarily).


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

And we're open once more.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> One could make millions of dollars. But despite being confident you could write a chart-topping Pop song, you don't do it? What is it? You don't like money?
> 
> Actually, I think it is because in actuality you don't have what it takes to do it. You could never do it no matter how hard you tried. Because if you could, you would be doing it, making gobs of money. No, because you can't do it you denigrate those who can.


I don't disagree with what you say, but isn't the way you treat John Williams similar to the way nikola treats modern pop?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> Even the great Rick Beato concedes...
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...iscusses-the-past-and-future-of-popular-music
> 
> As I have consistently maintained, 'pop' music can't be confined to that which is top of the charts...or that which the anti-pop define as that which they think is horrible.


You make a good point. But the problem with this thread is that it is based on extracting one element, harmony, from the totality of a Pop song, or record.

Really, it is a misnomer to talk about 'Pop songs". While that might have been accurate five or six decades ago, for some time Pop creators have been more concerned with making a record, the complete production of a song including many elements more important than harmony.

Since the late '70s much of Pop music has revolved around beats, samples, and vocal effects like autotune and other methods of signal processing. Of all the elements that go into a Pop record or production IMO the least important could be harmony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

nikola said:


> I didn't say they're worse than anyone.


What are your thoughts on these, which I think are good points (by the member Tchaikov6):


Tchaikov6 said:


> that's silly. There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies. Comments like these are what make other genre lovers look upon classical fans as snobs.





Tchaikov6 said:


> Music is subjective. Period. I don't think anyone would argue against that? There is plenty of rap music I enjoy than certain Bach and Mozart pieces (that happen to be my two favorite composers). There is no "greatest work" and someone's junk can be someone else's masterpiece.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> You make a good point. But the problem with this thread is that it is based on extracting one element, harmony, from the totality of a Pop song, or record.
> 
> Really, it is a misnomer to talk about 'Pop songs". While that might have been accurate five or six decades ago, for some time Pop creators have been more concerned with making a record, the complete production of a song including many elements more important than harmony.
> 
> Since the late '70s much of Pop music has revolved around beats, samples, and vocal effects like autotune and other methods of signal processing. Of all the elements that go into a Pop record or production IMO the least important could be harmony.


There are several problems with this thread, in common with other threads on the same theme. A member who has no time for certain types of pop music makes a generalised statement as if all pop is, from their point of view, essentially unworthy. Quite why some members come along with the express purpose of dismissing a whole genre, instead of contributing to the classical threads is a mystery.

It's probably the same kind of mystery as my showing up to defend pop - even pop I don't like or listen to. It just seems ignorant to me that one would hope to enhance one's kudos as a sophisticated listener of classical by dissing what they disdain.

In this particular case, one study makes a claim about pop that can't actually be properly reviewed because we don't have access to their data. And one allegedly experienced producer of pop turned YTB influencer (not making enough money as a pop producer now?) is nostalgic for music from days of yore.

Aren't we all?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> There are several problems with this thread, in common with other threads on the same theme. A member who has no time for certain types of pop music makes a generalised statement as if all pop is, from their point of view, essentially unworthy. Quite why some members come along with the express purpose of dismissing a whole genre, instead of contributing to the classical threads is a mystery.
> 
> It's probably the same kind of mystery as my showing up to defend pop - even pop I don't like or listen to. It just seems ignorant to me that one would hope to enhance one's kudos as a sophisticated listener of classical by dissing what they disdain.
> 
> ...


I had never heard of Rick Beato prior to people linking to his YT clips. I generally don't watch those kinds of things, but found some of them interesting, others not so much. In this case I find his specific criticism just as reductive and distorted as the OP:



> Beato: Well, most of the popular music, as far as musical sophistication and harmony go, is not as sophisticated. They don't have chord progressions as complex as Steely Dan or The Beatles. Most of them are predominantly four chords. Not to say that there weren't four-chord songs back in the day, but by the late '60s, you started to have really sophisticated arrangements, modulations, and long solos in different keys - and across all different genres of music. Take "Jump" by Van Halen, their most successful single: It's got a key change in the bridge, a guitar solo, and a keyboard solo. This is a sophisticated arrangement you just don't find in popular music today. Not to say that it isn't out there, but it just isn't at the top of the charts.


This view expressed by Beato is one-dimensional and is inaccurate, which he sort of admits but tries to obscure by adding the caveat "it just isn't at the top of the charts."

Music reaches the "top of the charts" because there is a large audience for it. Mostly that audience for Pop hits is much younger than Beato. Just as his parents probably did not approve of the music he liked as a teenager, now he is disapproving of the preferred music of kids who could be his grandchildren.

The song 'Louie, Louie" was crude but extremely popular, probably because of that crudeness. And there were countless songs of the same style as "Louie, Louie". And there is no reason to apologize for it - it is very infectious music that always has enjoyed a large audience. The Beatles, whom he cites as a prime example of when pop was better, were responsible for lot of this simple kind of Pop along with their more sophisticated songs.

The reality is that today's Pop music offers much more variety than what was out during the '60s and '70s - some crude and simple, a lot of it complex on a variety of levels.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

There isn't a large audience for new pop music anymore. New music is dying and with some luck it will be completely dead soon and here is the proof:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/

Popular music today is objectively much worse than 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years ago.
It uses 2 or 3 same chords all the time, melodies are lame and almost non-existent, production is sterile and robotic and the whole mentality surrounding the 'atmosphere' of new music is uninspired and almost dead. There is zero creativity or some interesting ideas in new songs. They're all the same. Music moguls can't fool all the people all the time.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> What are your thoughts on these, which I think are good points (by the member Tchaikov6):


That's a complex topic. Classical music can be boring. McCartney once said that there is only good and bad music and I agree. There is also music in between.There is certainly something out there like 'taste', but there are also objective measures for music. If someone would say that Beethoven's 5th is truly a bad piece of music compared to Post Malone's 'Motley Crew', then we have a problem. That's not taste - that's having a problem with basic abilities to comprehend music. It's still ok to prefer pop music instead of classical music. I'm sure there is pop music that is equally inspired and meaningful like the best examples of classical music. I'm sure that Eminem's 'Without Me' is more fun to young people than some boring classical noodling on piano and I can understand that. People like catchy and energetic tunes with great hooks, but these 'hooks' are not even catchy today... it all became generic and horrible. People who always defend every type of music, even when they don't hear it, think that they are 'doing something great'. They're not. They're destroying probably the greatest art that exists just to pretend that 'they're good with everyone, they tolerate everyone and they understand everyone who is listening even the worst crap' and that is something that is happening a lot lately. It's probably some type of 'woke' mentality, but for music. 
Such apporach is killing music as art. If everything is good, then nothing needs to be good then and the result we see today. 
We think that young people today like that crap on the Billboard top 100. They don't, they mostly didn't hear anything better, they're spoon fed with crap, they're brainwashed. 
Music is first of all, IMO, something that is the most sacred and most substantially important for the human race. Music has every right to be mostly mediocre and even bad and people have every right to have a taste for whatever they want to, but to promote the lowest common denominator in music just to make profit and destroy music for years and even decades is not something that we should say 'that's ok... it's all subjective... it's all taste'. No, it's not. Many young people care less and less about new music. Statistics are showing that. They are listening to old music more and more.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Whatabout people who have absolutely no need for any Beethoven, but




(Relax 8 Hours of Birds Singing and Water Sounds-Nature Sound Relaxation-Relaxing Birdsong)
Is this crap too?



nikola said:


> Music is first of all, IMO, something that is the most sacred and most substantially important for the human race.


How? You listen to music if it interests/pleases/excites/soothes you. If it doesn't or you don't want to, you don't. Humanity can always exist without it.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout people who have absolutely no need for any Beethoven, but
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Majority of people don't have a need for Beethoven. Do you ask me those questions because you don't know the answer? Your questions don't have much in common with this topic.

Humanity never existed without music, so obviously it can't exist without it. It's the most human and the most important expression of human being. It is above the material things in this world. It's sometimes the only escapism from ugliness in this world. It's the most natural and meaningful escapism. It's the language of soul... at least sometimes. It can make you feel variety of emotions... it can be fun and sad and angry. Emotions are the most important and predominant part of human beings and because of emotions we do what we do. Everything beside emotions are mostly delusions of our materialistic world that we give importance that doesn't exist.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

nikola said:


>


You beat me to it.

I was going to post a link to this video.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> You beat me to it.
> 
> I was going to post a link to this video.


Why?

.............................


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

There have been many posts in this thread that have addressed the decline of pop music.

I do not know the name of the gentleman who prepared the video "Why is Modern Music so Awful".

I can not do a better job of explaining it. 

I have also seen a video that claimed that it was bogus. I thought the response was bogus and missed the point.

Although I have a problem with some of his methodology, overall, the video makes sense to me.

This is an opinion and a person has a right to disagree.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

IMO Pop music has always had examples of trite simple-minded songs that were extremely popular, as well as some songs which transcended the genre's cliche of being unsophisticated music written for crass commercial purposes.

The premise of this thread is that Pop music has deteriorated. 

But I don't recognize this decline, only a change in styles which has caused some people to bemoan the loss of their preferred style of Pop.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> There have been many posts in this thread that have addressed the decline of pop music.


As "the decline of pop music" is disputed, it might be more accurate to say



arpeggio said:


> There have been many posts in this thread that have *claimed *the decline of pop music.


There have been several threads on this Forum to do the same. As far as I can see, all that can be "addressed" is the shift in the styles of music that most regularly appear in the top 20 of the US/UK and European charts. I'm sure there's research worth doing into the history of the charts in various Asian countries too.

The theory that pop has "declined" (From when to when? In what way? In which artists or styles can "the decline" be noted?) cannot be merely asserted by individuals who don't like the "crap" that they rail against. It's equally problematic if those who defend pop refuse to acknowledge that 'pop' is defined as much by, or more by its popularity (ie sales) as it is by any set of musical styles. In other words, pop music is only that which appears in the top 20/40/100 UK or Billboard, regardless of its musical content.

When I was a child, there was no disco, no rap or hip-hop, no techno, no prog, no fusion. But there was still a top 40 full of easy listening, ballads, show tunes and rock and roll was beginning to take control. Hard rock was in its infancy. So there was both a kind of homogeneity and a diversity of music, but different than the homogeneity and diversity of today. Songs by the likes of Doris Day, Kathy Kirby, Ken Dodd, Donald Pears, Val Doonican, The Seekers, John Rowles jostled alongside The Beatles, Stones and Motown.

They simply wouldn't appear in the UK charts today. To measure any kind of "decline" would need to take account of the whole history of the charts, and of the musical styles that have come, diversified, gone or wandered into a niche!

There are some interesting points made in this research article about instrumental complexity which is no less worth citing than any 15-min YTBer rant.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115255


> The composer Arnold Schönberg held that joy or excitement in listening to music originates from the struggle between two opposing impulses, 'the demand for repetition of pleasant stimuli, and the opposing desire for variety, for change, for a new stimulus.'





> the best-selling album of 2013 in the US was not from Daft Punk [the most acclaimed album], but _The 20/20 Experience_ by Justin Timberlake. The producer of this album, Timothy Mosley, contributed 25 Billboard Top 40 singles between 2005-2010, more than any other producer [6]. All these records featured a unique production style consisting of 'vocal sounds imitating turntable scratching, quick keyboard arabesques, grunts as percussion' [7]. Asked about his target audience, Mosley said 'I know where my bread and butter is at. […] I did this research. It's the women who watch Sex and the City'


This last relates to a point I made in another thread where the decline of pop was claimed, which was about how the demographic of those buying what sells in the charts may (or may not) have changed.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> IMO Pop music has always had examples of trite simple-minded songs that were extremely popular, as well as some songs which transcended the genre's cliche of being unsophisticated music written for crass commercial purposes.
> 
> The premise of this thread is that Pop music has deteriorated.
> 
> But I don't recognize this decline, only a change in styles which has caused some people to bemoan the loss of their preferred style of Pop.


To not recognize decline in pop music is more a personal thing than the problem or lack of the problem with pop music. It's pretty much obvious to millions of people around the world that pop music started to decline since the mid 90s and there are many obvious reasons why that happened. 
If some people mostly don't listen to pop and despise it like you because they believe that main purpose of pop music was always the same and that musical moguls were always thinking the same and doing the same thing (they didn't), then it's obvious that song like 'Habibi' by Ricky Rich is on the same level as 'Take on Me' by A-Ha. But people who care about pop are actually able to recognize the difference that is objectively much bigger between those 2 songs than the difference between baroque and romantic period in classical music. 
Also, what exactly is pop music to you? I see that you're listening to Bob Dylan. He was actually pop music for many decades and he was also on the charts. His music is way more repetitive and simplistic unlike many good pop songs that were out there. He is mostly interesting to people only because of lyrics. I was never listening to music because of the lyrics. Even though I appreciate his music and was listening to his whole discography a few years ago, I find him musically pretty boring, repetitive and predictable. He doesn't use interesting or unique chords in his music like Joni Mitchell or Elton John do etc. Old blues stuff you posted was also pop of its time along with jazz. Blues is musically always predictable and uses the same chords all the time. Everything that was popular at a time was pop music.
So when someone says that pop was always the same, we should probably define first what pop music is.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> As "the decline of pop music" is disputed, it might be more accurate to say
> 
> There have been several threads on this Forum to do the same. As far as I can see, all that can be "addressed" is the shift in the styles of music that most regularly appear in the top 20 of the US/UK and European charts. I'm sure there's research worth doing into the history of the charts in various Asian countries too.
> 
> ...


You are simplifying the whole thing.
Every era had its sounds, its atmosphere and ambience, its trends and musical styles. The Beatles started to turn pop music into something more experimental and complex. Many bands and artists followed that. Since the mid 60s we have had a variety of talented musicians able to experiment, to break new grounds, to offer mature and creative pop-rock music no matter how simple or complex it may be. There was something for everyone. Around 1990 there were some great pop songs on the charts with great melodies, hooks, atmosphere etc. Those songs many people love and listen to even today. 'Wicked Game' by Chris Isaak for example sounds magical even today. It's not always about chords and melodies. Sometimes it is also about timbre, sound color, emotion, production value, vocals, arrangements, etc. 5 years after 'Wicked Game' pop charts were suddenly flooded with bland ballads by boy bands and all songs sounded the same.... charts were filled with simplistic dance hits that sound crappy today just like they did back then. Why music turned suddenly into something like that? Because musical moguls needed profit and they could make it on small children who suddenly became their main target audience. That was the beginning of the end. Even rap became prominent - probably for male children who thought gang lyrics and agression were cool to them. 
Songs before that had staying power. You could actually hear obvious differences between almost every song back in the 70s and 80s. Almost every song had its own 'personality'. Today everything sounds the same. Alternative music is empty and on the basic level it's the same just like pop music. Even 10 years ago pop music was more tolerable. Today it's not anymore.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's interesting for me to note that nikola's criticisms coincide roughly with the advent of the computer age in music production. I'm not against the DAW as such because in the right artistic hands, it has and will continue to contribute as much excellent music as it does dross imo. The DAW did allow non musicians or rather musicians without prior experience of music making, the opportunity to start making music themselves. For good and/or ill the DAW has changed pop music and media music.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> You are simplifying the whole thing.


Quite the opposite, actually. It's those who simply say "crap" and "rubbish" that are simplifying.

IMO, of course. :lol:


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> Quite the opposite, actually. It's those who simply say "crap" and "rubbish" that are simplifying.
> 
> IMO, of course. :lol:


I didn't mention only 'crap' and 'rubbish'. I explained in detail many times why today's music is bad. I gave links to music teachers, producers and people with musical knowledge who are all saying that today's music lacks in many ways and that people are less and less interested in new music.
Why do you have a need to belittle me just because you don't agree with me and because you're not able to bring some solid arguments? If you don't have any arguments anymore, it's better then to stop the conversation than trying to prove to yourself that I didn't say anything of any importance.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> I didn't mention only 'crap' and 'rubbish'. I explained in detail many times why today's music is bad. I gave links to music teachers, producers and people with musical knowledge who are all saying that today's music lacks in many ways and that people are less and less interested in new music.
> Why do you have a need to belittle me just because you don't agree with me and because you're not able to bring some solid arguments? If you don't have any arguments anymore, it's better then to stop the conversation than trying to prove to yourself that I didn't say anything of any importance.


First, it's those who are making the claims about the state of pop music that need to bring their argument. In response, I too have offered links to research about pop music, and set out an explanation of how both the music and the audiences for it have changed.

You disagree with my argument, but the essence of your response was to say that "You're simplifying the whole thing."

Second, in several of the posts you've made, you've felt it necessary to use one single derogatory term to describe current pop, and if not that term, others such as 'horrific' or 'bad'. See these:



nikola said:


> [...]The rest is mostly *horrific*. It all sounds the same. It's some mix of rap with pop and the overall feel is non-human and toxic and everything really sounds the same. Melodies are banal, minimalistic and simply bad. Chords are hardly there. Even if they are, it's still horrible and derivative.
> [...]
> Pop music has been progressively getting worse since the mid 90's, but these days... such horror even I wouldn't have expected 10 years ago. Modern pop is so bad that it is beyond words to describe it. There's no traces of soul or creativity in that music. How can anyone like that *crap *and pay for it is beyond my comprehension.
> I really think the problem is hunger for profit and this wild consumerist society. Money finally managed to destroy music and brainwash young people who think that they actually like that *crap*. Even Eminem looks like Beethoven and 'Barbie Girl' sounds like a piece of art compared to what's on charts today.





nikola said:


> [...] the true horror on the charts these days. Music on charts wasn't slightly better in the 80s. It's not just 'subjective feeling'. Music was simply way better. Not all of the music.. .there was always *crap *out there, but majority of songs were more impactful, they had more personality, more color, music was more creative, bold, more melodic etc.
> 
> Some people obviously listen to so many structurally 'different' and 'unique' music out there, that they're not even able to recognize the difference anymore between good and bad pop song, no matter how complex or simple it may be. Music lost everything it was back then.
> 
> ...





nikola said:


> From 'newer' stuff (2010), Cee Lo Green is talented and fun... this was a brilliant pop album and not some lame and sterile half baked *crap *as usual... he also has great vocals and knows how to sing. Plus brilliant production!





nikola said:


> [...]It is the pinnacle of soulless and money grabbing capitalist 'philosophy'. They decided that horrible music is a 'trend' because it's easy to make such music. It's a toxic and artificial world that we're all living in. In the mid 90s they started to destroy music when they decided that their target audience were little children who didn't have a clue how music sounded even 5 years prior they were exposed to *crap*. Children were easily brainwashed with derivative boy bend music and minimalistic and repetitive dance. Even that was brilliant compared to the charts today. In 2000 from many owners of the radio stations it all came down suddenly to only 5 of the owners of all radio stations (at least that's what Rick Beato said if I remember correctly). They destroyed many genres, so they could feed us with *crap *while selling us the philosophy that 'all music is equally good, only tastes are different'. That's how they woke (brainwashed) people and ruined the music.





nikola said:


> There is nothing hyperbolic about today's *horrible *pop music. Instead to prove why today's music doesn't actually suck and to prove that it actually didn't only become a cheap product to make a profit (in worse manner than ever before), you're talking about how my arguments aren't actually arguments because you say so. Oh, really?!
> There you have Rick Beato, a producer and music teacher on Youtube, also claiming that pop music today is mostly simplistic, derivative and simply bad compared with music from a few decades ago.


Last, naming a handful of songs from yesteryear is insufficient evidence that the pop of today is not as good as the pop of previous decades.

What I have already acknowledged is that I don't listen to what's in the charts any longer because it's not to my taste, and it's not aimed at me; that 'pop' really needs to be defined just as that which sells the best, rather than a style (or set of styles) and by posting a research paper (which you've read?) which I found by a random search of the internet in 5 minutes, which claims that the range of instrumentation in chart music has been reduced (and, by implication, simplified pop).

What I have pointed out here and elsewhere is that outside of the charts are plenty of artists working with more interesting material that might be counted as 'pop' in style if not in popularity.

The final irony is that in #185, *we agree *that "we should probably define first what pop music is."


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> First, it's those who are making the claims about the state of pop music that need to bring their argument. In response, I too have offered links to research about pop music, and set out an explanation of how both the music and the audiences for it have changed.
> 
> You disagree with my argument, but the essence of your response was to say that "You're simplifying the whole thing."
> 
> ...


I really doubt that you're such a snowflake that 'derogatory' terms sent towards concepts such as music (that you say you don't even listen to) would offend you. Are you really convinced that people should not use whatever terms they like to make an argument or do you only try to convince yourself that when someone, among other arguments. uses the word 'crap' that automatically cancels and make invalid everything else they have to say? 
Really? 
It's sad that you were willing to lose your time to quote and bold my every post with every word 'crap' I mentioned, like I'm probably not aware of what I wrote. What you did really only shows complete and utter desperation. I stand behind every word I said because CRAP is what some music really is and I explained in detail why.

So far, I see that to you, I'm the only topic, not the music. When I talk to you, I talk about music and I give my opinions and my arguments. When you talk to me, you don't talk about my arguments - you're talking about me and that's the first sign that this conversation was over a long time ago, since there are no arguments on the other side. Especially, when you disagree with me even though you don't know much about modern music since you don't listen to it, that means that you only disagree with my opinions because those are not opinions that you would find probably 'tolerant' towards music and you simply don't like that. Unlike you and some other people on this board, I'm not tolerant towards horrible music and I don't inted to become tolerant. My statements are based on experience while listening to new music and considering objective analysis of modern music by people with musical knowledge. Even casual listener who isn't brain dead can recognize the problem today.

I see that all this witch-hunt you are trying to start is becoming worse and even more after I wrote that 'You are simplifying the whole thing.'
I didn't write that to insult and you didn't care for anything I wrote after that because you felt insulted and tried to belittle me. You really don't care about arguments at all. I wrote that to tell you that even though every era has its own styles and trends, it's not true that the only problem today is 'style' that some people don't like. There are objective parameters why today's music is of lower quality than older music and I pointed why many times. And even after all that, you're talking about me and trying really really hard to annul everything I have to say because you don't like that someone has a view on music different than yours.

Also, the only argument about music you made in this post is that I probably 'didn't hear enough music before and today that I could claim it's worse than before'. 
Yes, I heard a ton of music and no, I'm not the only one who claims that music today is much worse than before.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Also, the only argument about music you made in this post is that I probably 'didn't hear enough music before and today that I could claim it's worse than before'.
> Yes, I heard a ton of music and no, I'm not the only one who claims that music today is much worse than before.


The music is not worse, not in my opinion. To me Pop music has always been a mix of music I thought was good and bad. But I would respect your opinion more if you said that you don't like the Pop music of today as much as what you heard in previous decades.

Because, the fact is there are tens of millions of people do think the Pop music of today is good and better than what their parents liked. And that is far more than the number of people saying it is worse than in previous decades.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> The music is not worse, not in my opinion. To me Pop music has always been a mix of music I thought was good and bad. But I would respect your opinion more if you said that you don't like the Pop music of today as much as what you heard in previous decades.
> 
> Because, the fact is there are tens of millions of people do think the Pop music of today is good and better than what their parents liked. And that is far more than the number of people saying it is worse than in previous decades.


Did you make a poll for all 7 billion people that you know that more people think today's pop music is actually better? Are there at least some songs that could prove that new pop music is better? 
If so, why is old music killing new music then and why people care less and less about new pop music?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Did you make a poll for all 7 billion people that you know that more people think today's pop music is actually better? Are there at least some songs that could prove that new pop music is better?
> If so, why is old music killing new music then and why people care less and less about new pop music?


The data is the millions of people who buy in some form or stream the most popular songs and artists. These songs and artists would not be topping the charts if millions of people were not supporting their music. I am not convinced that "old music" is "killing" new music since there is ample evidence that new Pop has a huge number of fans.

I also will not get into a song comparisons since it is a pointless waste of time. I have already said that I reject the limited basis of comparison limited to harmonic content alone since I recognize that some of the best examples are good because of other elements. However, listening to the Hot 100 many have harmonic content as developed as most older hit songs.

IMO it is obvious that it is matter of opinion that old Pop is better than new Pop. If that is your premise, it is an opinion but it does not cancel out the millions of young people who listen to new Pop. I don't know if they also listen to old Pop but a glance at the Billboard Top 100 chart will show that new Pop dominates the top forty, not old Pop.

It is also obvious that new Pop enjoys a huge audience which would indicate that a large number of people find value in the music.

*Spotify playlist of Billboard Hot 100*


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> The data is the millions of people who buy in some form or stream the most popular songs and artists. These songs and artists would not be topping the charts if millions of people were not supporting their music. I am not convinced that "old music" is "killing" new music since there is ample evidence that new Pop has a huge number of fans.
> 
> I also will not get into a song comparisons since it is a pointless waste of time. I have already said that I reject the limited basis of comparison limited to harmonic content alone since I recognize that some of the best examples are good because of other elements. However, listening to the Hot 100 many have harmonic content as developed as most older hit songs.
> 
> ...


For a 2nd time I post this and here is the answer to your statement:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/

Being spoon-fed with horrible music for years and being brainwashed into believing that soulless and empty music with weak and generic melodies and 2 or 3 exactly same chords in all songs is good music is probably fine for some people, but not for me.
Anyone has the right to think/believe that today's music is great and I have every right to say that they're wrong. I heard those new hits. I found about 10 mediocre (ok) songs, 89% of horrific garbage and 1 possible plagiarism. I can give them credit for 10 mediocre songs that are still worse than at least 90% of 80s music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> It is also obvious that new Pop enjoys a huge audience which would indicate that a large number of people find value in the music.
> 
> *Spotify playlist of Billboard Hot 100*


I will rate and review the Billboard top 10 from the list you sent me. I will rate this considering it is pop and not some artistic masterpiece because I don't expect from pop music to be something it can't be:

1. Heat Waves - Glass Animals. 
Those deep processed vocals at the beginning are horrible. Repetitive and dervative nursery rhyme melody that sends me kinda slightly retarded feeling, especially during the end of every line in verse. I've heard 'music' like this so many times that I don't even see the point in making such music. Rhythm is also straightforward and boring. I'll be generous and rate this 2.5/10.

2. We Don't Talk About Bruno - Carolina Gaitan
Some latin/salsa music. I was watching this animated movie and it was decent. The song is not very impressive. Not bad, not crap, but somehow forced... it doesn't sound natural to me, something is off. Don't care about it. 4.5/10

3. abcdefu - Gayle
This is an ok and musically elaborated song unlike many others today. Nice melody in chorus, nice 'na na na' in post-chorus (at least to me). Simple, yet effective to an extent. For a pop song 6/10

4. Super Gremlin - Kodak Black
I don't care about rap, but this one has a tolerable childish arrangement. It's still pretty awful. Nothing new here. Rating a majority of rap is to me like trying to eat dog poop and then trying to find some words that aren't too harsh considering the deadly taste I just experienced. 2/10

5. Easy on Me - Adele
Decent old-style piano ballad. Nice melody, but not very impressive. I heard so many songs like this, but 100 times better. Her first album seems better than her new stuff. Still, it's nice that something like this can still reach the charts. She knows how to sing, but her vocal acrobatics are sometimes slightly annoying. 'Rolling in the Deep' was much better. It's ok for a ballad. 5.5/10

6. Stay - The Kid Laroi, Justin Bieber
Extremely minimalist, but the chorus is even kinda catchy. Vocals are pretty annoying. At least there's some life in this jingle. One of the best on the Billboard and that's actually the worst thing. 4/10

7. Ghost - Justin Bieber
Kinda an interesting rhythm in the verse, but the song as a whole is completely uninteresting. Melody is derivative and forgettable. I also compose on the piano for my own enjoyment and when I come up with some crappy tune like this, I don't try to develop it further because I can't hear anything interesting. This really only shows that they don't have good composers for pop music anymore. 2.5/10

8. Shivers - Ed Sheeran
Generic and simplistic, yet better than the previous song, but that ain't saying much. Catchy moments here and there. When I say 'catchy', I don't mean catchy like ABBA with great melodies, development, hooks etc. I mean annoyingly catchy like the flu. It's not a disaster, it's just bad. 3.5/10

9. Bad Habits - Ed Sheeran
They really can't come up with any unique chords or melodies. Everything sounds the same. It's predictable and sterile just like the previous song. Repetitive and nothing happens, but I'll be generous and give it also 3.5/10.

10. Cold Heart - Elton John, Dua Lipa
I really don't like when they massacre Elton's classics. They even put wrong chords below melodies, so all those melodies sound like one song. It's not a disaster and there are at least small parts of Elton melodies that I like in this, but I'd rather that Inever heard this remix. 4.5/10

So, I could go further with the reviews, but I already heard at least 90% of those songs previous days and I know that songs will soon become even much worse on this list. Nothing of real value here, nothing that I would like to listen to. If I was a kid, I wouldn't like those songs even if it's the only music that I know.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> So, I could go further with the reviews, but I already heard at least 90% of those songs previous days and I know that songs will soon become even much worse on this list. Nothing of real value here, nothing that I would like to listen to. If I was a kid, I wouldn't like those songs even if it's the only music that I know.


Of course your opinion is relevant for you. The fact is that these songs and artists are the most popular music right now, with millions of fans who do not share your opinion.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> For a 2nd time I post this and here is the answer to your statement:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-music/621339/


For the 2nd time I will reply to you that I found the interview with Rick Beato (if that is the same article, the link is broken) to be one opinion, his, which is reductive IMO and reflects his taste. It is irrelevant to me as well as to the millions of fans of the current Pop music.

Also I accept the taste of the audience of this music as valid and not questionable, and not the result of "brainwashing".

What I get from you is that you wish to present your taste as the defining standard for what is good Pop music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Of course your opinion is relevant for you. The fact is that these songs and artists are the most popular music right now, with millions of fans who do not share your opinion.


Those pop artists could have billions of fans and that would still not turn those pop songs into good pop music. Brainwashing can do miracles with people. Many dictators who killed millions of people also had millions of fans, but that didn't turn them into angels.

"The majority is always wrong, the minority is rarely right" - Henrik Ibsen


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> For the 2nd time I will reply to you that I found the interview with Rick Beato (if that is the same article, the link is broken) to be one opinion, his, which is reductive IMO and reflects his taste. It is irrelevant to me as well as to the millions of fans of the current Pop music.
> 
> Also I accept the taste of the audience of this music as valid and not questionable, and not the result of "brainwashing".
> 
> What I get from you is that you wish to present your taste as the defining standard for what is good Pop music.


It's not an interview with Rick. It's about how old music is killing new music and how people care less and less about music that you want to protect for some unknown reason.
Maybe link will work now:
old music is killing new music because old music is better

New music is dying and that is a measurable fact.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

nikola said:


> New music is dying and that is a measurable fact


If that's the case, what's the point of all this fuss in this thread? What action should we take? Just keep calm and wait for new music to die out?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> If that's the case, what's the point of all this fuss in this thread? What action should we take? Just keep calm and wait for new music to die out?


That's exactly what I will do.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Those pop artists could have billions of fans and that would still not turn those pop songs into good pop music. Brainwashing can do miracles with people.


I listen to the songs and can perceive the skill in the writing, and I have been a professional songwriter for over 30 years and can tell good from bad writing. I can assure you I am not brainwashed.

The audience in their teens and twenties has a different taste than I, I accept that. But I accept that their taste is just as valid as mine. I am not trying to "protect" new Pop music, the market will take care of itself. Styles change but generally the creative quality remains constant.

I am also skeptical of your article since the most popular artists are those like Adele, Ed Sheeran, and many others that appear on the Billboard chart. Ted Gioia is a good writer and music historian - but I am skeptical about arguments based on statistics since they can be distorted to prove anything. Have you heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics."

I am not worried about the Pop music scene/market. It is the nature of the business that Pop changes every 5-8 years as one generation ages out and a new generation comes of age with their taste will drive the market.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I listen to the songs and can perceive the skill in the writing, and I have been a professional songwriter for ovder 30 years and can hear good from bad writing. I can assure you I am not brainwashed.
> 
> I accept that the audience in their teens and twenties has a different taste that I - I don't listen to the Billboard Top 100. But I accept that their taste is just as valid as mine. I am not trying to "protect" new Pop music, the market will take care of itself.
> 
> ...


There are also many listeners and musicians who don't agree with your opinion about modern music and that means - here we go again!
We can talk about this forever and we will still not agree.
If you were a professional musician for a long time, you could also have a professional deformation, so thinking that making a tune that actually 'works' is good enough for a song might not be enough for a listener who wants to hear something more creative and not the same banal and derivative 3 chords with lame melodies glued to it. Music is art and it should sound like it, not like a mass produced product.
You should not be worried about pop music. You should be happy that something bad will die, so something better could be born. Modern pop music is so stale, lifeless and bad that it's time for something new to come. Modern pop is a joke that has gone too far.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> For a 2nd time I post this and here is the answer to your statement:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/
> 
> Being spoon-fed with horrible music for years and being brainwashed into believing that soulless and empty music with weak and generic melodies and 2 or 3 exactly same chords in all songs is good music is probably fine for some people, but not for me.
> Anyone has the right to think/believe that today's music is great and I have every right to say that they're wrong. I heard those new hits. I found about 10 mediocre (ok) songs, 89% of horrific garbage and 1 possible plagiarism. I can give them credit for 10 mediocre songs that are still worse than at least 90% of *80s music*.


Not a decent argument. Most of the music from the 80s sucked balls.

Music from the 80s was worse than at least 90% of 70s music.

Music from the 70s was worse than at least 90% of 60 music.

See where I'm going with this . . . ?

I'm giving no examples, no proof, no definitions, no context . . . .


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Not a decent argument. Most of the music from the 80s sucked balls.
> 
> Music from the 80s was worse than at least 90% of 70s music.
> 
> ...


I gave many arguments here. Those are not only my arguments. Those are arguments of musicians, producers, music teachers, casual listeners etc. Just because you didn't read all my posts, doesn't mean that arguments are not there. Trying to pretend that my arguments are weak, like I said earlier to other member, makes some of you look desperate.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread has moved from arguments about pop music to comments about other members. Please refrain from such comments and focus solely on popular music and it's supposed death.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> I will rate and review the Billboard top 10 from the list you sent me. I will rate this considering it is pop and not some artistic masterpiece because I don't expect from pop music to be something it can't be:
> 
> 1. Heat Waves - Glass Animals.
> Those deep processed vocals at the beginning are horrible. Repetitive and dervative nursery rhyme melody that sends me kinda slightly retarded feeling, especially during the end of every line in verse. I've heard 'music' like this so many times that I don't even see the point in making such music. Rhythm is also straightforward and boring. I'll be generous and rate this 2.5/10.
> ...


THAT is interesting. At _last_. Commentary as to precisely what you like and don't like about these current *Top 10 Hits*. Frankly, I, too, don't really care for most of what is popular these days. Rap "music" is repetitive and annoying, and lyrically doesn't connect personally with me. I can appreciate the subject matter, and clever use of the language, but I really don't like people talking and shouting in rhythm; it's like amateur Shakespeare. Hip Hop doesn't really do it for me either, for many of the same reasons.

A lot of "caucasian" music is, as you point out, pretty non-complex. But it's always been that way; whether it was the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 2010s, there seems to be a lot more substandard music than there is "gold".

I've heard only one of the songs on that current Top Ten, the _*Bruno*_ one, since I accompanied a high school student that sang it at our Winter/Spring Solos concert. It seemed pleasant enough.

Now, try the same with a Billboard chart from the 1980s. I randomly picked *December 10, 1982* (although I started first with 12/10/1962 _first_, then thought _"no"_, you were touting *the 80s* earlier, so I bumped it up 20 years).

Offhand I can recall six of these (1, 3, 5, 7, & 9, and, once I heard it again, 6), and can say I rather enjoy two of 'em (Dirty Laundry and Rock This Town). Although I'm a solid McCartney fan, this duet with Jackson was pretty lame.

Here was the *Top Ten* from that week:

1. Toni Basil - _*Mickey*_
Catchy, but rudimentary. Depending on my mood either fun/bouncy or annoying. Composed to dance to, I assume. *2.5*

2. Laura Branigan - _*Gloria*_
Oh, yeah, now I remember this one. I like Branigan's voice, although the song is formulaically arranged. *5.0*

3. Hall & Oates - _*Maneater*_
I took an instant dislike to this when it was constantly played on the radio. There's something inherently annoying about it. Let's dance. Not.*1.5*

4. Lionel Ritchie - _*Truly*_
Can't say I remember this one. Very formulaic romantic ballad _without_ a decent melody, although that's a really catchy interval hook from the 5th up to the 3rd of the Tonic. But that's not enough. *1.5*

5. Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney - _*The Girl Is Mine:*_ 
Truly awful. Notable for the very low note McCartney hits somewhere in the song. A hit only because it was MJ and Macca together. Their other duet was far better. *1.5*

6. Joe Jackson - *Steppin' Out*
Ah, yes, I remember this one after all. Lightweight and somewhat interesting. Didn't sound like the same old dance crap that was so popular, so that's something. *6.0*

7. Don Henley - _*Dirty Laundry*_: 
Enjoyable for its commentary. Love Henley's voice. Great production. *8.5*

8. Marvin Gaye - _*Sexual Healing*_
Even though the title _sounds_ familiar, I don't recall every hearing this one either. Very repetitive, and basically goes nowhere musically. In fact, it seems pretty lame. 
*1.5*

9. Stray Cats - _*Rock This Town*_: Well it's really stylistically a throwback, but a very well done one. Amazing work for a three-piece band. *9.0*

10. Diana Ross - _*Muscles*_
Interesting introduction, fun wah-wah guitar. Nice backing vocal harmonies. Compositionally vapid, but does have a lot of eclectic elements. Even worse: There's an "extended" version. *3.5*



Strange, but 5 of the 10 titles contain only one word.

Offhand, I'd rate only two of them "Very Good", slightly better than your rating of 0/10 for the _current_ *Billboard* chart.

How would _you_ rate this random Top Ten from the 80s?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> THAT is interesting. At _last_. Commentary as to precisely what you like and don't like about these current *Top 10 Hits*.
> 
> Now, try the same with a Billboard chart from the 1980s.
> Offhand, I'd rate only two of them "Very Good", slightly better than your rating of 0/10 for the _current_ *Billboard* chart.


Your post underscores my basic point that Pop music has always included mostly mediocre (or worse) songs, as well as, a few songs which transcend the genre and are truly remarkable. This is true for all decades across the entire history recorded music.

Of course all of our posts exhibit our personal taste and not objective judgments.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Your post underscores my basic point that Pop music has always included mostly mediocre (or worse) songs, as well as, a few songs which transcend the genre and are truly remarkable. This is true for all decades across the entire history recorded music.
> 
> Of course all of our posts exhibit our personal taste and not objective judgments.


Last year sometime I made it a personal project to listen to *all* 100 *Billboard Top 100* songs (_AND_ the B-Sides to those singles) for each year *from 1955 up to 1962*, which was the year *The Beatles* released their first proper single as a stand-alone band, mostly to underscore, to myself, how different their music sounded, and the impact and influence that they had on Pop Music. So, yeah, like, 2000 songs (200 from each year).

_Of course, *The Beatles* made very little impact in the USA until the very end of 1963, culminating in a record breaking situation where, in April 1964 they simultaneously held the *top 5* spots on the *Billboard Top Ten*, *and* had 12 singles charting in the Top 100._

But listening to some of those charting singles became a chore, a real slog. 

*So much* mediocre (or worse) music. There was a lot of out-of-tune doo-*** groups, and some high charting "adult teen" singers that shouldn't have been let anywhere near a microphone. Some idiotic stuff from the popular vocalists from the late 40s.

There was an awful mish-mosh of former standards singers nestled right up next to already derivative rock and roll tracks. You could tell some of them had been simply thrown together and handed to singers by songwriters that obviously didn't understand rock and roll at all . . . in fact, many of those rock songs already sounded like parodies of the new genre.

Sure, there were standout songs, but I was surprised at how much dreck there was, even with my expectations already being low.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

There are several problems with this thread:

1. Limiting the discussion to harmony
2. Cherry-picking of songs for comparison
3. Fuzzy data presented as objective criteria
4. Offering subjective personal opinion as fact

But the primary problem with this thread, and any thread talking about genres, is the labeling aspect.

'Pop" music is a label created to sell music. In all of my 50+ years as a professional musician I've never met a colleague who embraced a label. Famously both Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong rejected the label "Jazz" for their music, preferring to say this is "my (or our) music."

Music is a very personal statement of a musician's essence. Most often a personal style is an amalgam of various strains that coalesce into an individual style. 

Billboard has dozens of genre charts but I would wager that the artists would not identify with the genre they are collected under. It is because musicians don't think they are writing Pop or Jazz or Rock or Country, they are producing the music that means the most to them and the music which expresses their human-ness.

I have always rejected labeling as reductive. Labels do not relate to the music other than as a marketing strategy. Musically, genre labels are meaningless.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianozach said:


> Here was the *Top Ten* from that week:
> 
> 1. Toni Basil - _*Mickey*_
> [etc]


1982. A fantastic year - since it was when I first met my wife. I was doing a post-grad teaching certificate, so was still a student going to clubs and discos, listening to the radio and buying the New Musical Express. I was no longer watching _Top of the Pops _(essential weekly viewing for seeing what was in the charts).

Of the ten songs listed, I only owned _Sexual Healing_, which was great. Of the others, _Mickey _was fun, _Steppin' Out _was catchy (but Jackson, who grew up in my home county, had sold out to smooth rock for the US market), _Gloria _rousing. The rest was unremarkable (though I remember loathing the Jackson/McCartney and the Henley completely passed me by).

In the UK, the Top Ten for the same week was a completely different set of songs. I'm not going to post the list or score them. 
The worst was number 1, Renee and Renato's Save Your Love. The rest exemplified the transformation in the UK pop scene wrought by Punk, (though Punk itself was nowhere to be seen): The Jam, Culture Club, Madness, Human League. This was already becoming watered down by the rise of Club (Wham, Modern Romance) while rock and roll was still present (Shakin' Stevens) and Soul/Funk (Lionel Richie). The 10th was Bowie and Bing's _Little Drummer Boy_.

I remember them all, liked only the Madness, owned none, but almost certainly danced to most of it! I was more interested in Simple Minds, ABC, New Order, Depeche Mode, OMD, Kraftwerk, XTC... In concert, I saw Ian Dury, The Jam, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Fall, New Order, Thompson Twins. Oh, and Frank Zappa.

So, yes, there was much dreck, some reasonable pop songs, and the top of the indie scene in evidence. My recollection of the 70s, once I'd started to buy my own records, was that it was full of ghastly soul and disco and only the occasional oddity - like Bowie, 10cc and Sparks. I was attracted more to prog which rarely made the singles charts.

Obviously, the "Good Old Days" reign supreme in the memory, though I now play Fleet Foxes, Sufjan Stevens, Radiohead (probably my favourite band after The Beatles), Elbow, Arcade Fire...

There's as much good 'pop' around now if you look for it.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> THAT is interesting. At _last_. Commentary as to precisely what you like and don't like about these current *Top 10 Hits*. Frankly, I, too, don't really care for most of what is popular these days. Rap "music" is repetitive and annoying, and lyrically doesn't connect personally with me. I can appreciate the subject matter, and clever use of the language, but I really don't like people talking and shouting in rhythm; it's like amateur Shakespeare. Hip Hop doesn't really do it for me either, for many of the same reasons.
> 
> A lot of "caucasian" music is, as you point out, pretty non-complex. But it's always been that way; whether it was the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 2010s, there seems to be a lot more substandard music than there is "gold".
> 
> ...


Sure, I'll do that.

1. Toni Basil - _*Mickey*_
Corny synth riff, but the interesting thing is that from this song's beginning everything sounds more humane and organic than anything on the new top list. Completely different vibe. I agree it's nothing special and it has a very basic melody, but it's still not horrible. 3.5/10

2. Laura Branigan - _*Gloria*_
I know this song. Pretty melodic. The synth riff in the intro, actually based on repeating 'Gloria', is almost the same from Elton John's repeating of the word 'Saturday' in 'Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting'. Typical 80s song with some melancholy and sadness (mostly in the bridge of the song) that was present even in uptempo songs often. Not one of the best 80s songs, but I like it. Musically it stands on its own as a decent pop song. Better than anything on the new top list. 7/10

3. Hall & Oates - _*Maneater*_
I like 80s music also because they always let music to breathe. There is nothing hysterically filled with vocals and aggressive rhythms. Music sounds relaxed, natural and real musicians are playing. There are quieter parts in songs, instrumental solos etc. Not one of my favorite 80s songs and slightly repetitive, but it's ok. 5/10

4. Lionel Ritchie - _*Truly*_
Yes, it's a pretty cheesy and derivative ballad, but still better than horrific ballads today with high pitched vocals and whining. Lionel has some much better ballads. I think your rating is still way too low. 3.5/10

5. Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney - _*The Girl Is Mine:*_If you're talking about 'Say Say Say' I agree it's a much better duet. This is still such a relaxed tune. It has a simple, yet fine melody, especially in the verse. Better than 90% of the top 100 today. You're being way too harsh for this one. 5/10

6. Joe Jackson - *Steppin' Out*
Typical 80s... nothing much interesting is happening here. Chorus is kinda interesting, but I'm still not impressed much. 4.5/10

7. Don Henley - _*Dirty Laundry*_
Interesting synth riff following melody, good guitar solo, decent melody, but it would be nice if the song progressed into some kind of more developed chorus. Yeah, the production is great, but I would prefer that the song went into more diverse directions because it sounds repetitive this way. 5/10

8. Marvin Gaye - _*Sexual Healing*_
I'm surprised you never heard this one. When they play 80s on some music channels they always play this one. I was never a fan, but the rhythm is really interesting. It has a nice relaxing 80s vibe and those are the things that make 80s music much better even if the songs aren't perfect. I'll quote one guy from the Youtube comment section about modern music: "What's missing in most (not all) of those examples are the intangibles…attitude, guts, spirit, energy, sincerity etc…"And I agree with that. Music sounded natural and humane back then. The production was creative and not robotic. Everything sounded like it was made for humans and not for some hybrid race. Considering the melody, this one is not very interesting, but as a whole, it has its value. 5/10

9. Stray Cats - _*Rock This Town*_
Pretty much basic r'n'r, yet still fun, nice vibe, great guitar playing, good vocals.... made for humans, not aliens. It sounds fun, healthy, humane. 5.5/10

10. Diana Ross - _*Muscles*_
This is musically a pretty interesting song. I don't remember hearing it before. Listen to how this song breathes. All musical elements don't sound like they're all having agressive sex at one place all the time as today's music. Music actually cared to bring you some story, there were 'expectation' and 'building' in songs. Music was like telling a story. Interesting production and arrangements too. Musically not a masterpiece, but a nice vibe and musical approach. 5.5/10

I must say that even though I somehow agree mostly with your ratings, it seems to me that you're often more subjective with ratings than with reviews. Giving 9.0 to generic r'n'r or 1.5 to songs that are really not that terrible. Sure, you'll say that we're all subjective, but we should take into consideration many things and overall quality if we want to be objective... if we want to try that at least.

So, the overall rating of this 80s top 10 is 4.95. 
The overall rating of the new Billboard top 10 is 3.85.

So, what can we conclude considering this? If I would continue to rate random lists of new and old music, this gap would certainly become even bigger. As I said in an earlier post, music can be mediocre and even bad sometimes, but most music today is horrific. Since I heard more than 100 new hits on one Youtube channel, I know that the lower on the new list I went, things became worse and worse. The songs are simply horrible (unlistenable) and my overall rating for songs from top 50 to 60 would probably be 3.0 or less. That wouldn't happen on an 80s list because I know how music sounded back then and what it offered. In the 80s music sounded more natural, more diverse and during the 80s there were probably about a thousand big hits that are good to great even today. From 2012 to 2022 there were probably 10 hits that are actually listenable (not great) and that is the main problem - overall quality dropped, no great or even good songs anymore, everything sounds sterile, robotic, minimalistic and the same. Also, even bad music in the 80s wasn't bad enough if we would compare it with modern music.

I'll try to find some other 80s top 10 to review it.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Let's try this one. I found it somewhere, it's probably accurate. It says 'American top 40 wiki'

*April 15, 1989*

1. *Fine Young Cannibals - She Drives Me Crazy* (+3)
This is a really interesting pop song. Kinda annoying vocals, but interesting rhythm and melody construction. Catchy. I think there is a Muppets version. *7.5/10*

2. *Roxette - The Look* (-1)
They have some great pop ballads. Good uptempo song. Not one of my most favorite and I heard it so many times, but it's a decent pop song with nice guitar riff. *6/10*

3. *Madonna - Like A Prayer* (+2)
Composed by Patrick Leonard who is very talented and has a knack for making really good melodies. Even though I'm not a fan of Madonna, this is a great pop song. *9.5/10*

4. *Bangles - Eternal Flame* (-2)
Once again, a really melodic ballad. You can't find something like this anymore anywhere. Vocals are maybe too 'girly' for my taste and even though this is a really over-sentimental song, the melody is still really good. You don't even need to listen such music to be able to realize that the composer, whoever he/she is, is talented. *9/10*

5. *Milli Vanilli - Girl You Know It's True* (-2)
Trash, yet still more tolerable than today's pop. Rap in the verse.... catchy, yet uninteresting and generic melody in chorus. *3/10*

6. *R.E.M. - Stand* (0)
Pretty childish tune. Not very interesting, yet not bad enough for modern pop. *4/10*

7. *Tone Loc - Funky Cold Medina* (+3)
Old school hip-hop. Musically lame. *2/10*

8. *Karyn White - Superwoman* (+3)
Pretty much uninteresting and generic ballad, but good for making you fall asleep. No matter how generic and sterile, it still sounds more humane with its approach and production than anything on the charts today and that's why I won't give it too low rating. *3.5/10*

9. *Roy Orbison - You Got It* (+3)
Now, this is something I really love. Good old Roy in one of his greatest songs. Vocals, arrangements, melody, production - all great. There's some magic in this that will never happen again. *10/10*

10. *Poison - Your Mama Don't Dance* (+3)
Simplistic r'n'r song turned into rock. Good guitar playing, nice catchy tune. It's ok. *4.5/10*

So, the overall rating here is *5.9*. 
3 brilliant songs at least to my taste and 2 very good songs. That could never happen today. 
80s - diverse music, great songs mixed with mediocre ones. There's something for everyone.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> 'Pop" music is a label created to sell music. In all of my 50+ years as a professional musician I've never met a colleague who embraced a label. Famously both Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong rejected the label "Jazz" for their music, preferring to say this is "my (or our) music."


"Debussy - never a fan of the 'impressionist' label anyway - was quick to dismiss Fanelli stating he had 'an acute sense of musical ornamentation' but that it 'dragged [him] towards such an extreme need of minute description' that it made him 'lose his sense of direction. '"


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

*Billboard October 19th 1985.*
I managed to listen top 40. Many songs I already know, some I don't.

1. *a-ha - Take on Me*
From the rhythm in intro to great and catchy synth riff to brilliant vocals and melody on those high notes in the chorus, this is truly one of the best pop songs ever made. A pop masterpiece. *10/10*

2. *Whitney Houston - Saving All My Love For You*
Song is a kinda cheesy pop ballad, but it's still ok. Brilliant vocals by Whitney, of course. *5.5/10*

3. *Stevie Wonder - Part Time Lover*
This is a nice catchy little tune. Even something like this is almost non-existent today. Chorus is really catchy and decent, while the verse isn't that interesting IMO with all those high notes. *5.5/10*

4. *Oh Sheila - Ready for the World*
Interesting rhythm, melody lacks though and nothing much happens. It's almost like music today, but with much better production. *3.5/10*

5. *Jan Hammer - Miami Vice Theme*
His 'Crockett's Theme' from the same TV series is brilliant. This ain't that great, but it ain't bad either. Interesting rhythms and textures. Typical 80s vibe. Good. *6/10*

6. *John Mellencamp - Lonely Ol' Night*
Kinda generic song, but still not generic like music today. Decent production, uninteresting melody. *4/10*

7. *Dire Straits - Money for Nothing*
Great album. 'Brothers in Arms' is probably my favorite 80s song. This isn't one of the best songs on the album or even singles, but it became the most popular if I'm not wrong. I also like Knopfler's early solo work more than what he did in Dire Straits.
This song has a great guitar riff, a decent melody and interesting production. Not crazy about it, but it's still a decent 80s pop-rock song. *6.5/10*

8. *Dancing in the Street - David Bowie & Mick Jagger*
Good production, lame melody, especially in the verse. *4/10*

9. *Sting - Fortress Around Your Heart*
Sting was using some unique chords in his music, but I can't say that I'm much impressed with the result of this one. It's still very interesting that musicians dared to create their own 'voice' and style with an unusual approach back then. *5/10*

10. *Tears for Fears - Head Over Heels*
Typical 80s pop. It's ok, nothing special. *5/10*

11. *Bruce Springsteen - I'm Going Down*
I really like this one. It makes me almost feel like I'm flying because of the rhythm, melody and vocals. Really good r'n'r song. Simple and kinda repetitive, yet it works. *7.5/10*

12. *Loverboy - Lovin' Every Minute of It*
Not much interesting. Mediocre song. *4.5/10*

13. *Kool & The Gang - Cherish*
So corny, yet the melody is quite nice and memorable. *6.5*

14. *Madonna - Dress You Up*
Typical mediocre 80s pop song. *4.5/10*

15. *Glenn Frey - You Belong to the City*
Not sure if I've heard this one before. Not very memorable, but not bad either. Pretty much lame and boring, yet ok melody. *5/10*

16. *Paul Young - I'm Gonna Tear Your Playhouse Down*
Never heard this one. Not bad, interesting rhythm and bass. Kinda creative, kinda annoying. Not impressed, but it's ok. *5/10*

17. *Starship - We Built This City*
I know that many people hate this song. I also think that Elton's lyricist Bernie Taupin wrote the lyrics. Musically it's not very interesting and somehow forced, but it's still ok. *5/10*

18. *ABC - Be Near Me*
Never heard this. Uninteresting and lame. Still listenable. *4/10*

19. *Bryan Adams - One Night Love Affair*
Generic, yet decent pop-rock track. *5.5/10*

20. *Night Ranger - Four in the Morning*
Generic, weak, yet still listenable. *3.5/10*

21. *Freddie Jackson - You are My Lady*
Corny 80s pop/soul. Lyrics, production, singing and music are vapid. *3/10*

22. *Don Henley - Sunset Grill*
Synth sounds are awful, the verse is ok, the chorus is lame. *4/10*

23. *The Hooters - And We Danced*
Typical 80s sound. Nothing special, but listenable *4/10*

24. *Thompson Twins - Lay Your Head on Me*
Kinda interesting and mediocre. *4.5/10*

25. *Wham - Freedom*
I like this one. Very catchy and I prefer it over similar 'Wake Me Up Before You Go Go". Really good melody, very catchy, great hooks and good to fight depression. *8.5/10*

26. *David Foster - Love Theme from St. Elmo's Fire*
Typical 80s sound. Not very musically creative soap opera music, but it's listenable. It reminds me of some of Yanni's earlier work, but Yanni is a much better composer. With slightly better production maybe I would give this half star more. *4/10*

27. *Heart - Never*
I don't think I heard this before. Nothing special, but decent. It sounds like a song that I could start to like more after more listening. Even though such an 80s sound seems dated today, it's still more human and I can feel the emotions from those songs as 'human', while listening to today's music I can't feel anything human anymore. *5.5/10*

28. *Aretha Franklin - Who's Zoomin' Who?*
Catchy and derivative pop music *4.5/10*

29. *Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin - Separate Lives*
Typical 80s ballad. Fine, but Phill had better songs during the 80s. Nice and subtle melody in the verse, nice chorus. I like the 80s vibe and atmosphere of the song. Sappy song, but quality songwriting and good performance. *7/10*

30. *Godley & Creme - Cry*
Not bad, but it doesn't impress much. *4/10*

31. *Daryll Hall & John Oates - The Way You Do Things You Do/My Girl*
Something from 60s in 80s. It's ok, nothing special. 2 songs. First song is too repetitive. Performance is good. *4.5/10*

32. *Phil Collins - Don't Lose My Number*
Another Phil song. I like his 80s pop. Uptempo song with really good melody and great hooks. I know many people think it's cool to hate Phil. I like his music. One of those songs that define 80s sound to me *9/10*

33. *Corey Hart - Boy in the Box*
If I'm not wrong this kinda reminds me of INXS. I'd say style over substance. Interesting rhythms and textures, but that's it. *4/10*

34. *The Power Station - Communication*
Pretty meaningless song. Similar to the previous one, but worse. *3.5/10*

35. *Mr. Mister - Broken Wings*
I really like the atmosphere in this one and that beautiful instrumental part in the middle of the song. If we have to describe the 80s, this is probably one of the top five 'most 80s' sounding songs. Melody may not be 'perfect', but I like the production, those synths, chords, etc. *9/10*

36. *OMD - So in Love*
It's ok and nothing more or less. Nothing much is happening in this one. I love their 'Maid of Orleans' song. *4.5/10*

37. *Tina Turner - One of the Living*
Dramatic and an ok song, but the other Mad Max song is much better. *5.5/10*

38. *John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band - C-I-T-Y*
Ok... nothing special. *5/10*

39. *John Parr - St. Elmo's Fire (Man in Motion)*
Typical 80s pop song with decent melody. *6/10*

40. *The Pointer Sisters - Dare Me*
At first listening I'm not sure what to think. It's certainly not bad, but not impressive either. *4.5/10*

So, instead of ratings 0, 1 and 2 that I would give to many top 40 songs today, these 80s songs are better even when they're not really great. There are also many songs that I can really enjoy. I can't enjoy almost anything that was on the charts in the last 10 years. Back in the 80s there was always a possibility that some great songs would appear. Such a possibility doesn't exist today.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> Sure, I'll do that.
> 
> 1. Toni Basil - _*Mickey*_
> Corny synth riff, but the interesting thing is that from this song's beginning everything sounds more humane and organic than anything on the new top list. Completely different vibe. I agree it's nothing special and it has a very basic melody, but it's still not horrible. 3.5/10
> ...


*If I would continue to rate random lists of new and old music, this gap would certainly become even bigger. *

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We could do an experiment for the second week in December for every year ending in "2": 1952, 1962, 1972. Then skip to 1992, 2002, and 2012. And maybe every second week in December for every year ending in "7": 1957, '67, '77, '87, '97, '07, and '17.

Yeah, sure, we'd both rate slightly differently, that's a given considering a likely reflection of tastes. But take your 1982 ratings: Still only one over a "6". Me, two over a "6".

I suppose I should return the favor and listen to the 2022 list you found, and rate 'em. I'd guess that I'd think they mostly suck, just based on gut feeling.

Personally, I don't think that anything will ever compare to the music released between the ten years 1966-1975. But I'm also pretty fond of Big Band music as well. And pre-Modern Classical. I prefer Pop-Opera voices over Opera voices. In general I was never a fan of Disco, Punk, Thrash Metal, Rap, or Hip Hop.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Personally, I don't think that anything will ever compare to the music released between the ten years 1966-1975.


How old were you during that period? It is a widely held idea that the music that first moved us when we were young generally remains a touchstone for us.

Speaking personally I don't have favorite years or decades, but I do have favorite kinds of music. 
The most interesting music to me is that of which I know nothing and have never heard before.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

But if I were to score songs, from any decade, I'm sure I'd come up with different results from other members. What would that prove?

Nothing, but that our tastes in music differ. It certainly won't say anything objective about the quality of the music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> How old were you during that period? It is a widely held idea that the music that first moved us when we were young generally remains a touchstone for us.
> 
> Speaking personally I don't have favorite years or decades, but I do have favorite kinds of music.
> The most interesting music to me is that of which I know nothing and have never heard before.


I can't say that I have a favorite era, I just think that the 80s were the pinnacle of pop music since we had hundreds of great pop songs in the 80s. 
When I was in my teen years (around mid 90s) I really disliked most of the pop hits that my generation mostly liked (boy bands, dance hits, rap became more prominent etc.). All that 80s vibe and creativity suddenly died.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Age. The two bands to which I am most attached were at their height when I was 8, The Beatles, and then when I was 40 (and older: Radiohead are still going).

I like(d) and still listen to pop/rock/alt music from every decade since I was born.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> But if I were to score songs, from any decade, I'm sure I'd come up with different results from other members. What would that prove?
> 
> Nothing, but that our tastes in music differ. It certainly won't say anything objective about the quality of the music.


Most songs today are using the same 2 or 3 chords. Check!
Melodies are lame. Check!
Songs are simple, formulaic and predictable. Check!
Production is completely the same on all songs by all artists. Check!
It's almost impossible to notice any meaningful differences between songs. Check!
Nothing sounds inspired. Check!

Those are pretty much objective parameters that we can be sure that the quality of pop music dropped.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> *If I would continue to rate random lists of new and old music, this gap would certainly become even bigger. *
> 
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. We could do an experiment for the second week in December for every year ending in "2": 1952, 1962, 1972. Then skip to 1992, 2002, and 2012. And maybe every second week in December for every year ending in "7": 1957, '67, '77, '87, '97, '07, and '17.
> 
> ...


It seems that we might have a similar taste.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> Most songs today are using the same 2 or 3 chords. Check!
> Melodies are lame. Check!
> Songs are simple, formulaic and predictable. Check!
> Production is completely the same on all songs by all artists. Check!
> ...


Those are mostly subjective parameters.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I'll review the rest of the new Billboard hits from 10 to 40, so I can compare it with 1985.

11. *Lil Nas X - That's What I Want*
This is like listening to air. Really nothing here. Derivative and musically completely uninteresting and meaningless. *1.5/10*

12. *Doja Cat - Need to Know*
Talking over boring beats. What should I say? A masterpiece? Sure! *1/10*

13. *Imagine Dragons - Enemy*
Dramatic in 'a modern way' I guess. It's listenable to an extent, but 'listenable' isn't enough. *2/10*

14. *Gunna & Future - Pushin P*
So bad it's hilarious. I mean, ok, there is some kinda 'interesting' instrumental below those talking, but God, this is so bad it's pathetic. *0.5/10*

15. *Dua Lipa - Levitating*
Because of this catchy and generic chorus, one other band sued her... probably not her, but certainly one or all of her 5 songwriters who 'wrote' this song. Considering the offer here, not that bad, but still derivative and uninteresting. *3.5/10*

16. *Lil Nas X, Jack Harlow - Industry Baby*
Really awful piece of hip-hop. *1/10*

17. *Latto - Big Energy*
Music and lyrics - bad. Rhythm is not that bad. *2/10*

18. *Jessica Darrow - Surface Pressure*
Also kinda forced like another song from this cartoon. Chorus is kinda catchy. I don't like vocals. *4/10*

19. *Lil Durk - AHHH HA*
Oh God. Horrible rap. NEXT! *0.5/10*

20. *The Weeknd & Ariana Grande - Save Your Tears*
This really ain't bad 80s wannabe song. Nice melody and vibe. Simple, yet effective. *6/10*

21. *Doja Cat - Woman*
Repetitive and retarded melody. Synthetic, lifeless and awful. *1/10*

22. *Post Malone & The Weeknd - One Right Now*
Rhythm ain't bad, but it's substance is non-existent. Derivative and lazy. *2/10*

23. *Muni Long - Hrs and Hrs*
Lame modern R&B. Decent vocals, boring content. *3/10*

24. *Becky G & Carol G - MAMIII*
Some latin style, but also pretty much derivative. Not horrible, but not very interesting. *3.5/10*

25. *SZA - I Hate U*
Meaningless crap. *1.5/10*

I can't listen to this garbage anymore. It's painful. I wanted to hear the whole top 40, but it's over.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> If that's the case, what's the point of all this fuss in this thread? What action should we take? Just keep calm and wait for new music to die out?
> 
> 
> nikola said:
> ...


All we need to do is to keep calm and wait for new music to die out. Check!



nikola said:


> makes some of you look desperate.


There's absolutely no need to get worked up or show signs of desperation (ie. write loads of text repetitively or resort to derogatory language (terms like "crap") in the process) about all this. Check!


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ...focus solely on popular music and it's supposed death.


Yes, pop music is indeed supposed death.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)




----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> I can't say that I have a favorite era, I just think that the 80s were the pinnacle of pop music since we had hundreds of great pop songs in the 80s.
> When I was in my teen years (around mid 90s) I really disliked most of the pop hits that my generation mostly liked (boy bands, dance hits, rap became more prominent etc.). All that 80s vibe and creativity suddenly died.


I share your enthusiasm for the pop of the 1980s; I assume that you are remembering the songs of Journey, Styx, REO Speedwagon, later Jefferson Starship, certainly Madonna and Cyndi Lauper. And if you are not referring to these groups then I am.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Another interesting article:
Why has music become so intentionally awful during the past two decades?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

If there has been a deterioration in the musical quality of Pop it occurred a long, long time ago, decades before the 1980s.

In the 1930s the pop music was big band swing/Jazz. Then in the '40s-'50s it was driven by Broadway songs that became the canon of the Great American Songbook. The harmonic and melodic sophistication of these periods is much greater than Pop of the 1980s for sure, but really Pop since the 1960s. 

So, it is ludicrous to hold the 1980s up as a high artistic standard which the 2020s can't match.

But this only buttresses my overall point which is Pop styles change and with those stylistic changes there are different kinds of songs written with different artistic goals and priorities. Different singing styles, different instrumentation, and arrangements, and recording technology.

One person might consider the Pop of '80s the best. Someone else might consider the Pop of the 1930s the best. A lot of it has to do with what was the Pop when a person came of age to appreciate music. But there are also those people who have an appreciation for the Pop of all these decades, they can recognize quality no matter what the style is.

And these people don't go around tarring with a broad brush all the Pop from any decade.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> If there has been a deterioration in the musical quality of Pop it occurred a long, long time ago, decades before the 1980s.
> 
> In the 1930s the pop music was big band swing/Jazz. Then in the '40s-'50s it was driven by Broadway songs that became the canon of the Great American Songbook. The harmonic and melodic sophistication of these periods is much greater than Pop of the 1980s for sure, but really Pop since the 1960s.
> 
> ...


People who think that all music is equally good probably don't even like music then. If all music is the same to you (or anyone else) and equally good, then music actually doesn't even need to be good anymore because whatever you do and call 'song' or a 'piece' will always be good as anything else in music. I can fart, record that and put that on youtube and it will be also 'good' because you will say that the quality of chords, melodies, and harmonies are subjective thing anyway. If everything is equally great, then you don't need any skills for music. Probably it's the same with science. Everyone is Einstein and Tesla then. Everyone can play football, everyone can sing, everyone can run 100 meters in 5 seconds. If someone can't run 100 meters in 5 seconds, he still made it in 5 seconds because time is subjective. We are all great at running, at science, at football, at music, etc.

Leonard Bernstein is one of the greatest musical teachers and he also said back in the 60s that there are many awful pop songs, but that there is also great pop music. It's quite wrong to think that 'recognizing quality in everything' is some positive characteristic of human being. No, such an attitude is actually destroying what's left of music. Art critics exist as long as art and they are important just like the art they are reviewing.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Rating the current Billboard Top 10

Before I dive in, it's probably worth noting that these days people tend to listen with their eyes. Music now comes with videos, and those videos are now part of the music experience for today's young listeners. 

We've known the power of the visual component of things: Way back in 1960, when Nixon and Kennedy debated prior to the Presidential election, experts that heard the debate on the radio felt that Nixon won, while those that WATCHED the debate on live TV felt that JFK won. 

1. Heat Waves - Glass Animals. 
Harmonically, musically, melodically, and rhythmically numbing. The 8-chord looping harmonic progression underneath the 1 bar repeating melody, along with metronome percussion is dull. The introduction was perhaps the best part, followed by the dropout ending. It's almost like this was written by computer algorithm. "I'll be generous and rate this" 2/10.

2. We Don't Talk About Bruno - Carolina Gaitan
I've heard this one before, but only because I needed to learn the groove in order to accompany it at the High School Soloist Concert a few weeks ago. Very salsa. Latino-flavored, and engineered (calculated?) to be that way. At least it's a genre that isn't overdone, and sounds somewhat fresh. Kinda fun, and kinda forced, and kinda forgettable, but I'll give it 6/10.

3. abcdefu - Gayle
Somehow I've heard this one before, and I found it rather catchy. I love its rebel sensibilities, and the vocals are good. Musically it's not really all that original, but I marked it higher for its clever and sassy lyrics. 6.5/10

4. Super Gremlin - Kodak Black
"I don't care about rap, but this one has" an intolerable "childish arrangement. It's . . . pretty awful. Nothing new here." I've heard worse rap, but there was nothing in this that made me feel anything except for impatience. 2/10

5. Easy on Me - Adele
Adele has found a niche, both lyrically and musically that had been ignored. Every teen girl can learn these fairly simple piano arrangements, and the tunes are proper mezzo belter so they can sing it and feel their angst has been heard. Adele's lyrics strike an uneasy balance between pathos, sincerity, and vagueness, so we can all relate. 7.5/10

6. Stay - The Kid Laroi, Justin Bieber
I've heard this one before as well. First off, Bieber just rubs me the wrong way eight ways from Sunday, mostly because he's an entitled jerk - for me his music is forever tainted by the sh-!tty way he treats people in his personal life. As for the song: It's "catchy", through the use of high falsetto jumps that border on yodelling. I'm bothered that the melody for the verses are of the AAAB formula, but somehow it's not really as annoying as it could have been. The VI-VII-i-V progression is used effectively enough. Bieber's contributions to the song seem pretty "taped on the side of the box afterwards" to help sell the single. I hear "production" all over this. Clocking in at a pretty short 2:37, it ends before it wears out its welcome. 6/10

7. Ghost - Justin Bieber
Great mix of techno and acoustic guitar (although John Mellencamp did that first mixing the rock and acoustic with Jack and Diane. Or was it Boston with More That a Feeling?). I'll assume that the arrangement was more a production job than artist choice, as it seems to have been engineered for the film in which it premiered. Songwriting by the numbers. 
On the downside, it's Justin Bieber. However, he just sounds like some generic singer from the 2010s, with no real personality showing through. 2.5/10

8. Shivers - Ed Sheeran
I'm not really a fan of Sheeran, but he's a somewhat clever songwriter, and this song is no exception. It's a fun catchy tune, and lyrically is simultaneously dumb and smart. Musically, though, it's pretty simplistic, although in this case I didn't realize how much so until it was over. Clever, polished song. 5.5/10

9. Bad Habits - Ed Sheeran
Like Bieber, Sheeran has two songs in the Top Ten. I was struck by how much this one sounded like the other. I understand the concept of follow-up singles, but I don't think this was intentional, just habit. Fairly repetitive. This one is slightly more forgettable than the other one, but again, saved by some decent lyrics. 4.5/10. 

10. Cold Heart - Elton John, Dua Lipa
An unsatisfying marriage of nostalgia and genericism. Rather bland. 4.5/10


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

So . . . nikola's rating of the current Billboard Top Ten is 3.85.

My overall rating of the same "hits" is 4.7

Nikola's rating of the chart from 1982 is 4.95,

My overall rating of the 1982 Top Ten is 4.05

. . . . . . . . 1982 . . . . 2022

Nikola . . . 4.95 . . . . . 3.85
PZach . . . 4.05 . . . . . 4.70

The spread goes in opposite directions for each year, but the spreads between participants is 0.9 and 0.85. While Nikola rated 1982 higher than 2022, i (pianozach) actually rated 2022 slightly _higher_ than 1982.

Further, the spread between years that are decades apart is fairly narrow . . .

Nikola has the difference between '82 and '22 at 1.1, while I had them only 0.65 apart.

While this proves nothing, as both dates are random and the ratings subjective, it's worth noting that the amalgam of ratings overall doesn't differ that much from judge to judge, nor from date to date.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> If there has been a deterioration in the musical quality of Pop it occurred a long, long time ago, decades before the 1980s.
> 
> In the 1930s the pop music was big band swing/Jazz. Then in the '40s-'50s it was driven by Broadway songs that became the canon of the Great American Songbook. The harmonic and melodic sophistication of these periods is much greater than Pop of the 1980s for sure, but really Pop since the 1960s.
> 
> ...


One factor intrudes here in the comparative evaluation of pop from one decade to the next, and is especially true when the comparison is made with pop of the 1920s, 30s, 40s--the passage of time and a Darwinian ruthlessness reduce our knowledge and memories to the most remembered, most popular songs of earlier eras. The dross has been winnowed away, the wheat separated from the chaff. So an unfair comparison is made between the gauzy memories of past popular "excellence" and today's unfiltered product. It may well be that 30 or 40 years from now, today's pop will have been similarly winnowed, and the remembered remainder looked back upon with real affection.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> One factor intrudes here in the comparative evaluation of pop from one decade to the next, and is especially true when the comparison is made with pop of the 1920s, 30s, 40s--the passage of time and a Darwinian ruthlessness reduce our knowledge and memories to the most remembered, most popular songs of earlier eras. The dross has been winnowed away, the wheat separated from the chaff. So an unfair comparison is made between the gauzy memories of past popular "excellence" and today's unfiltered product. It may well be that 30 or 40 years from now, today's pop will have been similarly winnowed, and the remembered remainder looked back upon with real affection.


Exactly so. We grow up, we grow old, we change, and our memories of our former lives suffer the same fate as our musical memories. My memory of 80s music is that it was still vibrant and adventurous at the beginning, but became increasingly dull as the decade advanced. My memory of the 90s was even less kind.

Why?

Because during the 80s I stopped being a student and became a professional, got married, took up other interests, stopped listening to BBC Radio 1 (the pop channel) and listened to BBC Radio 4 (News, current affairs, drama). And during the 90s, we raised two children and I became a senior professional. I didn't have time to watch or listen to anything like the quantity of music I had digested in my youth.

When my sons started listening to music and developing their own tastes (mid 2000s), I discovered bands such Radiohead and Muse who had all emerged in the 90s while I was still satisfied with Phil Collins.

Now they've grown up and left home (thankfully) I know little of what's in the charts except what pops up in the celebrity pages of the newspaper I read, at the cinema or on daytime TV. Yesterday, I enjoyed listening to Sam Fender, a "new" act who has been around since 2015ish, apparently, but I went out of my way to look him up. (Prompted by noticing a long queue in the street of people buying tickets as he's coming to our town in the summer: we have the largest open air theatre in Europe).






He's had a top 30 in the US, but is yet to make a real impact there. He might, he might not. George Ezra is another solo male artist I like, also yet to make it in the US.






I'm winnowing the 2020s now, and not disparaging the stuff I'm not interested in, just as in the 70s and 80s, I ignored the US soft-rock (ugh!) and disco (ugh!!) and concentrated on the prog, jazz-rock, post-punk and new wave.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^While we agree on the passage of time, in theory, altering our memories of past pop musical enthusiasms, I have followed a different pattern in my relationship with past musics--since I was about 14 years old, I have enjoyed re-hearing favored songs, have established a collection in memory, on cassette tape, on iPod, or now on YouTube, a vast library of remembered songs that I never tire of hearing. For me, songs are either what I call Tapeworthy--fit to be heard again, world without end--or they are to be ignored and forgotten. The result is that my tastes never evolve or change so that old material is discarded as new material is introduced--my inventory only expands. Hence, starting with 1950s pop and Doo-***, I have retained prized songs from almost every pop genre--you mention your lack of enthusiasm for disco, soft rock, your growing disinterest in 1980s pop, etc--I have revered songs of all forms in my library, both mental and physical, without any real regard for either age or genre. So I am an outlier to my own observation of the winnowing effect of time--for me, the winnowing begins right at the first few hearings and has always been so practised.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> So . . . nikola's rating of the current Billboard Top Ten is 3.85.
> 
> My overall rating of the same "hits" is 4.7
> 
> ...


New Top 10 seems quite 'tolerable', but after that things are getting quickly worse. Top 100 is mostly torture. 
There is always a chance that you can pick some really weak 80s week and that top 10 might be not what you might expect and even weaker than new top 10, but if you could try to rate top 100 of both new and old top 100, I guarantee you that 80s would always win, not because 80s list would be that great, but because this new 2022 top 100 is really horrible beyond expectations. 
As you probably already noticed, I rated another top 10 from 1989 and the overall rating is even higher. There are even some 9+ songs (at least to me). 
It's always good to be aware that there was always mediocre and even bad music out there that is forgotten today, but there were also many brilliant songs that people love even today. I can't recognize 'classics' for future decades that are made today.

When I was listening to new hits a week ago on youtube playlist, there were probably 90% of music that is on Billboard right now but there was also one song that I actually found the most interesting of those 100. Sure, it's not that great song, it's not even for my taste, but it's different, it's angry, melody is even catchy, production is different and I really thought it's probably on pop charts, but it's not and it was the best and most creative song on that list IMO:





I can also agree that Billie Eilish and maybe few others are kinda more 'advanced' than 99% of other music on charts, but that's still not the level of quality that we can find in previous decades.

It seems that pop moguls only care today about music that sounds the same and that is homogenised to the point that you really can't differentiate songs anymore. Nobody cares about creativity anymore. 
All that might be caused even because the internet and Napster started to destroy the music industry back in 1999. That changed everything. But even prior to that during the mid 90s politics about pop music suddenly changed. If you were 'old' or not good looking enough, MTV didn't care much to play your music. Music back then was made for children from 5 to 20. 
Music like this was playing all the time everywhere and even though I was about 15 years old, I hated it:





Even that young, I wanted to hear some creativity in music. I wanted to feel something. I wanted more 'serious' pop by 'old, ugly and fat' musicians. Musically, this example is more catchy than almost anything today, but not 'catchy' in a good way.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Sam Fender sounds like something from 80s or 90s to me. 

Song by Gandalf is interesting. He might have a future in music business if he will live long enough.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^While we agree on the passage of time, in theory, altering our memories of past pop musical enthusiasms, I have followed a different pattern in my relationship with past musics--since I was about 14 years old, I have enjoyed re-hearing favored songs, have established a collection in memory, on cassette tape, on iPod, or now on YouTube, a vast library of remembered songs that I never tire of hearing. For me, songs are either what I call Tapeworthy--fit to be heard again, world without end--or they are to be ignored and forgotten. The result is that my tastes never evolve or change so that old material is discarded as new material is introduced--my inventory only expands. Hence, starting with 1950s pop and Doo-***, I have retained prized songs from almost every pop genre--you mention your lack of enthusiasm for disco, soft rock, your growing disinterest in 1980s pop, etc--I have revered songs of all forms in my library, both mental and physical, without any real regard for either age or genre. So I am an outlier to my own observation of the winnowing effect of time--for me, the winnowing begins right at the first few hearings and has always been so practised.


Well, in focusing on the winnowing and the memories, I simply left out what music I've retained from the past decades, and what music from past decades I've bought in more recent times.

I should add that while I referred disparagingly to disco and US soft rock, it was in the context of my attitudes at the time, not entirely dissimilar to nikola's now, that the charts were full of junk and there were precious few gems to be found there. I would not now write off a whole genre in the same way.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> Well, in focusing on the winnowing and the memories, I simply left out what music I've retained from the past decades, and what music from past decades I've bought in more recent times.
> 
> I should add that while I referred disparagingly to disco and US soft rock, it was in the context of my attitudes at the time, not entirely dissimilar to nikola's now, that the charts were full of junk and there were precious few gems to be found there. I would not now write off a whole genre in the same way.


^^^^I appreciate your added commentary, as it hints that our positions are likely similar. The only difference might be if, say, you disliked (all) Disco then and continue to dislike _all_ Disco now. My status is that I like now exactly the Disco (for example) that I liked in Disco's golden heyday.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

The WAY that music is delivered has also changed over the decades.

Remember 78s? No, you probably don't.

A lot of music was delivered via film.

Then there was radio. Remember transistor radios? No? Yes? Trebley sound, and records were EQd to sound good on them.

Then TV hit, and odd things started happening . . . There were variety shows, and Ricky Nelson started singing on The Ozzie and Harriet Show.

Ed Sullivan became a legit driving force in music, witnessed by his showcasing of Elvis Presley, then the Beatles. There was a Saturday morning Beatles cartoon that featured their music. There were dance TV shows, and Country Music TV shows, and TV shows hosted by singers like Dean Martin, Johnny Cash, The Smothers Brothers, The Monkees, Glen Campbell . . .

78s gave way to singles and LPs. I remember listening to ENTIRE albums at a time, which doesn't seem to be much of a "thing" anymore. From LPs to cassettes and 8-tracks, to CDs to downloads to streaming music services. And *Napster*. And *DAW*. And *Youtube*.

Did I mention *MTV*?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^You're right about the growth of availability of music over the decades. Music is now A Thing, and a big one. I do remember 78s--we had Jimmy Dorsey on 78s, and the Polovtsian Dances and bits of Sadko. Music is Everywhere now, and this may lead to being lessened in value as its scarcity gave way to hyperabundance.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> New Top 10 seems quite 'tolerable', but after that things are getting quickly worse. Top 100 is mostly torture.
> 
> There is *always a chance that you can pick some really weak 80s week* and that top 10 might be not what you might expect and even weaker than new top 10, but if you could try to rate top 100 of both new and old top 100, I guarantee you that 80s would always win, not because 80s list would be that great, but because this new 2022 top 100 is really horrible beyond expectations. . . . .


Possible. I could have picked a random week in *1979*, or *1987*. Or *1961*. My guess is that while _some_ weeks in the 1980s will certain be better than others, some would be even worse.

I think that the decade 1966-1975 puts 1980-1989 to shame. *

To my ears music sucked MORE in the 1980s than any other decade*.

The dawning of the 1980s saw the death throes of Disco, and the rise of "mainstream" Punk. Rap also went mainstream in 1979 with "*Rapper's Delight*", even though Rap spent an underground childhood starting in the early 1970s.

The 80s charts were dominated by bad '80s metal hair bands and talentless MTV pretty boys like *Duran Duran* and *Flock of Seagulls*. 1983 gave us *Human League*, and their big hit "*Don't Chew On Me, Baby*".

The *Stones* found new ways to suck.

*Rolling Stones*, 1983






Was Mick having a seizure? And in the 80s *The Stones* brought us _*Waiting On A Friend, She's So Cold*_, and the horrific _*Dancing in the Street*_ from *David Bowie & Mick Jagger* (that was 1985)

Did I mention drum machines? Oh, I didn't.

OK, *DRUM MACHINES*.

OH . . . oh, oh, oh . . . remember *Taco*? - _*Puttin' On The Ritz*_? _1983_. Yeah, 1983 was a clogged toilet of bad music. *Wham!* released _Love Machine_. Oh, and the 80s brought us freakin' *Milli Vanilli*.

Oh, wait, wait . . . remember that pompous, lame, cheezy synth sound that producers thought sounded so modern?

Gawd, even *Paul McCartney* laid some turds in the 1980s: *Give My Regards to Broad Street* (well, OK, that _was_ a film project). There was his forgettable *Press To Play* album. Oh, and that awful *Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson* duet '*The Girl Is Mine*',

*Maneater-Hall and Oats
Physical-Olivia Newton-John

Rick Astley - 'Never Gonna Give You Up' 
*
OK. I'll stop. I know that you can rip up ANY decade of music by dragging out its worst music.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^I appreciate your added commentary, as it hints that our positions are likely similar. The only difference might be if, say, you disliked (all) Disco then and continue to dislike _all_ Disco now. My status is that I like now exactly the Disco (for example) that I liked in Disco's golden heyday.


Disco has its place.

At discos, funnily enough. Once I was brave enough to get up and dance, I got to enjoy some disco music...Donna Summer, Chic, Boney M, etc. I still do, though DS is the only one in my collection, aside from pastiche disco by, say, Hot Chip.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Yes, I remember 78s.

If I Had A Talking Picture of You
The Grasshopper's Dance
Coppelia
Swan Lake
Wedding of the Painted Doll

We had a wind-up gramophone (an antique even then) with steel needles more like nails.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I am not an authority on pop music.

But after reading the many fine posts on both ends of the debate, the ones that make the most sense to me are:

"Why Is Modern Music So Awful" (I disagree with some of his methodology since in places he is trying to objectify some of the subjective aspects of music).

And Sam Beato's

"Why Todays Music Is So Boring"

and

"Why Boomers Hate Pop"

I realize that this is anecdotal, but my dentist is a big country fan. She plays country in the background. Last week I was there for a check-up so I was carefully listening to the music. One of Mr. Beato's observations that there was a lack of variation in tempo in current mainstream popular music. Every song I heard had the same tempo.

It seems to me that the above criticism should really be directed to mainstream popular music.

I. E. I am not that impressed with Katy Perry and I have mixed feelings with Lady Gaga. Justin Bieber is in the "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I've Got Love In My Tummy" class. The sixties had there share of losers.

I know that there are notable exceptions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> Disco has its place.
> 
> At discos, funnily enough. Once I was brave enough to get up and dance, I got to enjoy some disco music...Donna Summer, Chic, Boney M, etc. I still do, though DS is the only one in my collection, aside from pastiche disco by, say, Hot Chip.


I have a real affection for Disco. Its strange combination of wistfulness and invitation to joy was very emblematic of a world becoming so complex and stressful that one was induced to bury or mask one's _angst_ for a while, like a temporary reprieve or even stay of execution. Michael jackson's _Off the Wall_ sums up this combination. One was boogeying, but the Sword of Damocles hovered over us all. Chic (best seen/heard years later in Live at the Budokan), the Disco Bee Gees of Saturday Night Fever, the S.O.S. Band with the redoubtable Mary Davis, A Taste of Honey, some Earth,Wind&Fire, and Tavares: _Heaven Must be Missing an Angel_, an invitation to dance almost like a hypnotic command; so many more gems. It is also interesting that the Dark Side of Disco later emerged in songs like Billy Idol's _Flesh for Fantasy_ and Laura Branigan's _Self Control_, both strangely haunting songs themselves.

I will always enjoy, always lose myself now and again in the opiate of Disco.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> I am not an authority on pop music.
> 
> But after reading the many fine posts on both ends of the debate, the ones that make the most sense to me are:
> 
> ...


Funny. Although you talk about "many fine posts on both ends of the debate" the only ones you say make the most sense are all on one side of the debate.

Also funny is that today's Pop music was not written, created, produced, and recorded for people like you or Rick Beato or anyone old enough to have lived during '60s, '70s or '80s and grew up on the Pop music of those decades. There is a disturbing aspect to this debate which implies that teenagers in the '60s-'80s had better taste than teenagers today.

That idea makes no sense to me and one I reject. So when someone in their 50s or 60s says they don't like Justin Bieber that is no different from my parents complaining about the music I liked when I was 15.



> Every song I heard had the same tempo.


Pop music is a form of dance music. Dance music is always written in a small range of tempos, that are similar no matter if it's swing music of the '30s or today's Pop. No decade had music as formulaic as the '70s with Disco. And the music of Madonna, Culture Club, Blondie, and others in the '80s also shared tempos and formulaic harmonic and rhythmic tropes.

Pop music always displays these formulaic attributes, which is why it finds a mass audience.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

*Billboard WEEK OF JANUARY 7, 1984*

1. Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson - Say Say Say
Catchy chorus, great verse and fun to listen to. To make a decent pop song sounded 'so easy' back then 8/10

2. Daryl Hall & John Oates - Say It isn't So
Interesting rhythm. Not bad even though the melody is pretty lame. 4.5/10

3. Duran Duran - Union of the Snake
80s has many mediocre synth songs like this which, even though not great, still sounds much better than the majority on the charts today. This one is pretty annoying, but much more musically creative than anything today. 4.5/10

4. Yes - Owner of a Lonely Heart
Another mediocre 80s song. Not bad, not much impressive. Musically predictable for that time, but still, there are some interesting rhythm, textures and ideas in all those 80s songs. 4.5/10

5. Olivia Newton John - Twist of Fate
Decent 80s pop song. Not sure if I heard it before. I like chords in such songs and not sure why. Something so 80s, mysterious etc. This song kinda reminds me of ABBA, but not that good. 5.5/10

6. The Romantics - Talking in Your Sleep
Interesting, catchy... it's really a decent song. 6/10

7. Matthew Wilder - Break My Stride
Strange vocals, silly song, but not bad. 4.5/10

8. Elton John - I Guess That's Why They Call It the Blues
Unusual and brilliant melody. Not only one of Elton's best songs, but one of the best songs ever. A classic. 10/10

9. The Rolling Stones - Undercover of the Night
I understand why pianozach doesn't like this one, but it's still more tolerable than almost anything today. Real musicians, interesting rhythm and playing, but as a song it's pretty annoying and bad, so I agree that it's not one of the better songs here. 3.5/10

10. Lionel Richie - All Night Long
This is musically pretty uninteresting and derivative. It's ok, but that's it. 4/10

11. Billy Joel - Uptown Girl
This is simply brilliant. Great tribute to 50s/60s music. Catchy, memorable, many great hooks here, great main and backing vocals. Billy is a great composer. 10/10

12. Pat Benatar - Love is a Battlefield
A decent song. Not very impressive, but really nice. I like her vocals, production and atmosphere. 6.5/10

13. Culture Club - Karma Chameleon
80s classic. Good melody. 8/10

14. Peter Schilling - Major Tom (Coming Home)
Slightly strange song. What I find fascinating is the diversity of styles, sounds etc. on this list. That is non-existent today. Mediocre song, but certainly not horrible. 4.5/10

15. Lionel Richie - Running With the Night
Never heard this one. Typical 80s song and it's ok. 5.5/10

16. Culture Club - Church of the Poison Mind
A mediocre song. Listenable. 4.5/10

17. Kool & The Gang - Joanna
Mediocre/derivative song, but still listenable. 4/10

18. Barry Manilow - Read 'em and Weep
This sounds like a weaker version of some dramatic pop 'opera' song by Jim Steinman. Song is decent, but I don't think it works too well. 5/10

19. The Police - Synchronicity II
So many things are going on here musically. Interesting, but kinda annoying. It's always nice to hear something slightly different that doesn't happen today anymore on the charts. Strangely structured song, yet never changes much anything. 4.5/10

20. Quiet Riot - Cum on Feel the Noize
Hilarious rock song. With a different production this could be a Christmas song. 4.5/10

21. Jump'n the Saddle Band - The Curly Shuffle
Some old-style swing music. Fun. So much variety on this 80s list. 5.5/10

22. Genesis - That's All
Really good and catchy melody. I like it. 7.5/10

23. 38 Special - If I'd Be the One
Typical 80s pop tune. It's ok. 5.5/10

24. Ray Parker Jr. - I Still Can't Get Over Loving You
I never heard anything else from the 'Ghostbusters' guy. Nothing special and sappy lyrics, but still a decent track. 5.5/10

25. Debarge - Time Will Reveal
I don't like vocals. Do I hear a jazz chord or two here!? Not bad, but it sounds lame. 3.5/10

26. John Mellencamp - Pink Houses
Attitude over substance it seems. Nothing special and musically lame, but listenable. 3.5/10

27. Madonna - Holiday
Derivative and sugary 80s pop. Listenable 4/10

28. Irene Cara - Why Me
Typical 80s song. Nothing special and overproduced. 4/10

29. Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton - Islands of the Stream
I remember the chorus of this song. Fine song. 6/10

30. Christopher Cross - Think of Laura
Pretty much corny and musically uninteresting ballad. 4/10

31. Jeffrey Osborne - Stay With Me Tonight
Interesting rhythm and decent melody. Still, nothing special. 4.5/10

32. Spandau Ballet - Gold
I know this one. Typical 80s pop/new wave. Even though I don't like this song much for some reason (vocal probably), it's still musically interesting. Decent chorus, interesting and dramatic instrumental riff. Uplifting lyrics. It's a fine song. 6.5/10

33. The Fixx - The Sign of Fire
Pretty bad and uninteresting. Horrible vocals. Kinda dark and interesting, but not interesting enough. The worst song so far on this list. 3/10

34. Paul McCartney - So Bad
I never heard this one before. What happened to his voice? I respect him, but damn, this is really weak. 2.5/10

35. Big Country - In a Big Country
Almost nothing of any substance is going on here. Weak song. 3.5/10

36. Deborah Allen - Baby I Lied
Derivative yet an ok ballad. 5/10

37. Pretenders - Middle of the Road
If it's more developed it would probably be more interesting. 4/10

38. Shannon - Let the Music Play
Overproduced, uninteresting and pretty bad. 2.5/10

39. Billy Joel - An Innocent Man
Another Billy's masterpiece. A really cool song in 50s/60s style, great melody, great vocals. 10/10

40. Robert Plant - In the Mood
Now, this is what I call lazy songwriting. Nonsense 1.5/10

Ok, so this list also had some great songs and many really decent ones. Next time, I'll try to find the top 40 from the last few years (2019 for example) and review the songs.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Funny. Although you talk about "many fine posts on both ends of the debate" the only ones you say make the most sense are all on one side of the debate.
> 
> Also funny is that today's Pop music was not written, created, produced, and recorded for people like you or Rick Beato or anyone old enough to have lived during '60s, '70s or '80s and grew up on the Pop music of those decades. There is a disturbing aspect to this debate which implies that teenagers in the '60s-'80s had better taste than teenagers today.
> 
> ...


Just because you are avoiding facts, that doesn't mean that facts are not there. 
No, kids from the 60s didn't have better taste, but you always want to forget that today's music is mostly nothing more than the result of Napster who almost destroyed the musical industry. It's the result of greedy musical moguls who don't take risks anymore. It's the result of calculated music who's target audience are kids who are easily brainwashed. 
Also, there are other facts why today's music is bad and that is mentioned 100 times here. You say that is 'subjective'. No, the same chords are not subjective, lame melodies on those same chords are not subjective, sterile laptop music is not subjective.

And not all teens today like modern music. Only a minority listens to modern music and there are also facts that old music is killing modern music because young people are listening to old music more and more.

Yes, only one side of the table makes sense since I didn't see so far any arguments that new pop music is equally good like music from 40 years ago. It's not just about taste.
Music is INTENTIONALLY destroyed, so they could make profit more easily. That never happened before.

To say that Justin Bieber is great just like pop music from 40 or 50 years ago isn't an argument or proof of any kind. Where is the proof that today's sterile and homogenized music is better? So many people gave so many proofs and arguments that today's music is not as good as it used to be and you still want people to believe YOU? Why? What are your arguments?
Show us 100 songs from the last 10 years from Billboard that will prove that modern pop is as good as it used to be in the 80s. Explain to us why those 100 modern pop songs are good like those from the 80s (show us like Rick Beato with chords, melodies, timbre, etc.).

Blondie? Blondie was Gustav Mahler compared to crap on the charts today.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

^^^^^^
Your response is better than the one I drafted.

99% of the time I agree with SanAntone.

This is a 1%.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

nikola said:


> Blondie? Blondie was Gustav Mahler compared to crap on the charts today.


No, not Gustav. Tchaikovsky, perhaps but not the Prince of existential angst.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Also, I'm not so sure that we can say that subtle things are always 'subjective'. Emotion or lack of emotion in music is subjective? Really, can we be sure? 
Can we really say that it's not important the fact that we will on pop charts never hear anymore powerful, emotional or sad ballads like 'Brothers in Arms' by Dire Straits, 'Nothing Compares to You' by Sinead O'Connor, 'The Last Song' by Elton John, 'One More Try' by George Michael, 'Who Wants to Live Forever' by Queen, 'Total Eclipse of the Heart' by Bonnie Tyler?
Really? I am subjective if I care that all artists today don't have abilities to offer me something that will touch me because my emotions are dated and subjective? Being 41 years old, I'm already too old for this world? 
What about funny and inspired music like 'Banana Boat Song' by Harry Belafonte, 'Don't Worry, Be Happy' by Bobby McFerrin, 'Surfin' Bird' by The Trashmen? 
Is my need for something with human sound, soul and humour subjective? Is my need for something that sounds genuine and not forced, subjective?
If that is true, maybe the problem is with the mental and psychological state of society today and not necessarily with millions of people who can't stand modern music and find it lifeless, fake and sterile. 
Maybe this modern pop is showing us in a very objective way where our society is today. It shows us that greedy capitalists decided to brainwash young people so they can make easy money. 
The grit, emotion, soul, personality, atmosphere, humour and all those things in older music were 'subjective'? It's ok that so many people feel like aliens while listening to synthetic crap that all went through the same softwares and templates before it was delivered to us? 
Some people don't find that sad? Even a little bit?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The winnowing of time may leave us with memories of Incubus, Amy Winehouse, the two bands of James Mercer: The Shins and Broken Bells, Janelle Monae, others too numerous to mention, while the dross of the day is stripped away by Father Time.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Incubus-rap metal? Get outta here.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Just because you are avoiding facts, that doesn't mean that facts are not there.
> No, kids from the 60s didn't have better taste, but you always want to forget that today's music is mostly nothing more than the result of Napster who almost destroyed the musical industry. It's the result of greedy musical moguls who don't take risks anymore. It's the result of calculated music who's target audience are kids who are easily brainwashed.
> Also, there are other facts why today's music is bad and that is mentioned 100 times here. You say that is 'subjective'. No, the same chords are not subjective, lame melodies on those same chords are not subjective, sterile laptop music is not subjective.
> 
> ...


Today's Pop is the result of songwriters and producers creating music which they want to appeal to the 12-24 demographic. It is just about taste. Pop music has never really been about "art" but commerciality, selling product and capturing the fleeting attention of teenagers and young adults.

Justin Bieber is popular because his music appeals to the demographic that drives the Pop market. You are not in that demographic, and you don't think Justin Bieber's music is better than the Pop of the '80s - but a 16 year old kid probably does.

The difference between our positions is that I don't judge current Pop music, I accept that it has an audience of teenagers and young adults, just as did Pop from every decade from the '60s to the present.

But you seem to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker what Rick Beato and those other YT clips and articles are telling you. And since you don't like current Pop it is an easy sell. The weird thing to me is how passionate you appear to be about this question.

Really, Pop music isn't that important to get so worked up about it.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Today's Pop is the result of songwriters and producers creating music which they want to appeal to the 12-24 demographic. It is just about taste. Pop music has never really been about "art" but commerciality, selling product and capturing the fleeting attention of teenagers and young adults.
> 
> Justin Bieber is popular because his music appeals to the demographic that drives the Pop market. You are not in that demographic, and you don't think Justin Bieber's music is better than the Pop of the '80s - but a 16 year old kid probably does.
> 
> ...


I don't need Beato and others to tell me that modern pop is rubbish. I know that by myself because I heard it and I heard it correctly because I'm not braindead, but you obviously think that I should trust you that modern pop is good just like old pop because advocating crappy music is probably 'the right thing to do', right? 
Great, let's all be Woke and let's accept every crap that moguls offer to us.

Yes, pop music wasn't necessarily about 'art' until The Beatles started to experiment and turn pop music into something more 'serious' and everybody else followed. That's when people discovered that they can make great music in pop-rock form. 
Even early r'n'r stuff, no matter how simplistic and short, had much more soul, grit and musical creativity than anything on the charts today. I was never crazy about r'n'r, but to compose something like 'Runaway' (Del Shannon) you actually must have a talent, a creative mind, a soul and balls. 
To pull through templates on your laptop so called 'song' you don't need to have anything. You only have to repeat what you and everybody else did a million times before.

Yes, pop music is important because it shows the psychological state of society. It shows where we are as species and what we care about. Maybe all those songs about sex, money and parties with their horrific 'musical' background simply try to show us that we live in the most technologically advanced and beautiful time ever and that we will all soon be turned into androids. Who needs subtlety in music anymore!? Who needs chords or good melodies?! Who needs emotions or creativity when synthetic sound with a lot of beats on it is 'new emotional'!?
Yes, popular music is always showing us where we are as a society and obviously we're not in a good place.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

nikola said:


> Yes, pop music is important because it shows the psychological state of society. It shows where we are as species and what we care about. Maybe all those songs about sex, money and parties with their horrific 'musical' background simply try to show us that we live in the most technologically advanced and beautiful time ever and that we will all soon be turned into androids. ....


SanAntone is right. There's no need to get so worked up about it. Music is nothing more than just sounds. There are even people who don't need it in their lives. How healthy (to the mind) is watching pornography or playing video games, which are equally "mass-produced" these days, compared to listening to pop music? How healthy is watching pornography compared to listening to Beethoven? You can't measure these things.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> SanAntone is right. There's no need to get so worked up about it. Music is nothing more than just sounds. There are even people who don't need it in their lives. How healthy (to the mind) is watching pornography or playing video games, which are equally "mass-produced" these days, compared to listening to pop music? How healthy is watching pornography compared to listening to Beethoven? You can't measure these things.


I really believe it's virtually impossible to answer to your post.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> Incubus-rap metal? Get outta here.


You may be thinking of another Incubus. Hardly rap metal--_The Warmth?_. I don't think so. Besides, my general point is about the winnowing of material with the passage of time in any popular genre. And what music will or may be actually remembered from the early 2000s.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The the change in main street pop music has nothing to do with the artist or even the audience.

I am aware that the music producers in 1960 or 1910 were businessmen who were out to make commercially successful music.

The point of the videos is that the music producers of today have decades of marketing and psychological research that earlier producers did not have. They have managed to determine the formula for creating instantly successful commercial pop music. The point of the videos is that as a result most main street pop music sounds the same.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> The the change in main street pop music has nothing to do with the artist or even the audience.
> 
> I am aware that the music producers in 1960 or 1910 were businessmen who were out to make commercially successful music.
> 
> The point of the videos is that the music producers of today have decades of marketing and psychological research that earlier producers did not have. They have managed to determine the formula for creating instantly successful commercial pop music. The point of the videos is that as a result most main street pop music sounds the same.


Do you actually believe that there is a conspiracy to manipulate teenagers into buying bad Pop music based on this psychological and marketing research? And not that the producers and songwriters are also part of of the extended same demographic and are writing the kind of music they are passionate about?

Frankly, what you posit strikes me as absurd.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Do you actually believe that there is a conspiracy to manipulate teenagers into buying bad Pop music based on this psychological and marketing research? And not that the producers and songwriters are also part of of the extended same demographic and are writing the kind of music they are passionate about?
> 
> Frankly, what you posit strikes me as absurd.


I am really sad that you think that I am this ignorant.

It is remarks like this that get threads closed down.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> *Billboard WEEK OF JANUARY 7, 1984*
> 
> 1. Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson - Say Say Say
> Catchy chorus, great verse and fun to listen to. To make a decent pop song sounded 'so easy' back then 8/10
> ...


Congrats on finding a week in the 1980s that had a larger selection of decent songs. You rated 25 of those less than 5/10 (or, on the positive side, 15 of the 40 were rated 5/10 or higher).

40 songs is far too many to give a response to, but I'll say that there are 8 songs on the list of 40 that I'd rate highly (like a 7.5 or higher). I like 3 in the Top Ten.

I don't recognize the titles for 28 of the 40. That doesn't mean I haven't heard them somewhere along the line, but the titles don't ring a bell.

We agree on most of the songs you rate highly (7.5 or higher) with a couple of exceptions, but it's rather interesting that you only rate, like, five of the songs on this Top Forty list 7.5 or higher. So five songs 7.5 or higher, and another ten that are "decent" (5.0 - 7.0), although you give the ones in the 5.0 - 5.5 range some very prickly comments.

So, again, the 1980s delivered a lot of "not good" music.

My guess is that if you ran a list from 2019, I'm likely to not recognize a vast majority of them. I simply don't listen to Top 40 Radio very often. And I don't generally hang out in places where Top 40 music is played.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Worthless music has always had a large fanbase because it validates the basest human impulses. In our day it has become increasingly ubiquitous due to advancements in technology and its relative affordability. Any joe-blow with an app can produce a piece of “music” and upload it on YouTube.

As for music functioning as a barometer of a society’s health—that’s hardly arguable.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> Also, there are other facts why today's music is bad and that is mentioned 100 times here. You say that is 'subjective'. No, the same chords are not subjective, lame melodies on those same chords are not subjective, sterile laptop music is not subjective.


Whether a song has only 3 chords is objective.

Whether a song has a "lame" melody is subjective.

Whether laptop music is "sterile" is subjective.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

So, I chose a not quite random week's chart - this week last year (March 2021) the top ten in the UK

Olivia Rodrigo, Drivers License - 7
Nathan Evans (et al), Wellerman - remix of a sea shanty - 6 (the original - 7)
Tiesto, The Business - 4
Drake, What's Next - 5
Lil TJAY and 6lack, Calling my phone - 5
Drake, Lemon Pepper Freestyle - 5
Riten (et al), Friday - 6
The Kid Laroi, Without You - 5
Anne Marie (et al), Don't Play - 5
Drake, Wants and Needs - 4

The overwhelming feature of this set of songs is that they are sung by young people singing about their lives today in a vernacular that means something to them. Love, betrayal, sex, belonging etc etc - and watches, apparently. Watches are very important (to Drake anyway).

So, not much different than the preoccupations of pop music since the dawn of rock and roll.

Drake obviously has a highly specific style and appeal - not much music, the emphasis strongly on the lyrics - yet with three songs in the top 10, his appeal is either less specific than at first appears, or the demographic that is buying his songs is not the same as is buying more generally.

Olivia Rodrigo's no. 1 is the most conventional and the most obviously melodic (is she channelling Adele, or did Olivia come first?). I can see why it's at the top.

The sea shanty is fun - though the non-electro version is better.

If this is what's consistently in the charts, I'm not missing anything that I need to worry about. If it's what "the youth" wants to hear, I have no problem with it. The expletives do nothing for me, but that threshold's long since exceeded - no putting it back in the box!

Conclusion? The UK charts no longer represents the broad demographic (artists or listeners) that it did 20, 30, 60 years ago. The dominance of black artists continues, only they're not singing Motown or Soul or Disco very much - they have other concerns, other vernacular.

I can't comment on the US charts, but I'll bet that the same or similar trends dominate.

ADD

My scoring is not against some random objective criteria, subjectively applied, but a relative ranking, each song compared to the other in terms of interest and appeal to me. So, wholly subjective.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> So, I chose a not quite random week's chart - this week last year (March 2021) the top ten in the UK
> 
> Olivia Rodrigo, Drivers License - 7
> Nathan Evans (et al), Wellerman - remix of a sea shanty - 6 (the original - 7)
> ...


Olivia Rodrigo - Driver's License
7? Really? Oh, well. I guess that I probably have higher expectations about music. Not bad, but a pretty lame song without any originality or real emotion. It sounds like a more tolerable version of everything that was already released. Those nursery rhymes that start at 2:30 I don't like. Mediocre song. 4.5/10

Nathan Evans (et al), Wellerman - remix of a sea shanty
This actually sounds like a song. MAYBE because it's a 19th century song? Of course. I'd rather hear sailors sing this than this guy. It's ok. It would be better with more organic production. 4.5/10

Tiesto - The Business
Horrible vocals, repetitive, sterile, rhythmically and musically derivative. Those are songs with really 'nothing there'. 3/10

Drake - What's Next
The number of chords this drivel has = the rating of this 'song'. 5? Certainly not. This is bad beyond expectations. 1/10

Lil TJAY and 6lack - Calling my phone
Some piano in the background, twice as better than Drake's previous masterpiece, so it does deserve 2/10

Drake - Lemon Pepper Freestyle
Listening to this I remember some 20 years ago when we had Moby and Eminem that were light years better while making similar stuff. Lame. Repetitive drivel. 2.5/10

Riton x Nightcrawlers - Friday ft. Mufasa & Hypeman (Dopamine Re-edit)
Not sure if it's even the same song you mentioned, but probably it is. Derivative, repetitive and disposable pop. 3/10

The Kid Laroi - Without You
Finally something that sounds like a song and it's still bland, lame and formulaic. It sounds like thousands of other jingles I have already heard. Same 3 chords used in all songs. 3/10

Anne Marie (et al) - Don't Play
Another disposable drivel. Really bad. 2.5/10

Drake - Wants and Needs
It's better not to comment anymore. 1.5/10

Your ratings are way too high for all this and I won't go into 'WHY'.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Congrats on finding a week in the 1980s that had a larger selection of decent songs. You rated 25 of those less than 5/10 (or, on the positive side, 15 of the 40 were rated 5/10 or higher).
> 
> 40 songs is far too many to give a response to, but I'll say that there are 8 songs on the list of 40 that I'd rate highly (like a 7.5 or higher). I like 3 in the Top Ten.
> 
> ...


I don't think that when I give a rating about 4 or 5 that I think those songs are bad or disposable. They're just mediocre and don't meet my expectations. I always rate every song by comparing it to the best songs I heard and I heard many songs and that's why the overall rating might seem lower. It might be about 5 in the end, but there's still a fact that we have a decent number of very good to great songs here. Something like that is almost impossible today. Overall rating of new Billboard top 40 would be 2 to 3 and that's a big difference. 
95% of the songs on this 80s list have some value even if they're not great. It's diverse music unlike today. You can hear that effort was put into almost every song. Maybe 10 is too much for Joel's 'An Innocent Man', but I certainly wouldn't give it less than 9. There is always a subjective feeling when considering rating. If I think that some songs have intangible value, I could still give them higher or the highest rating.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> Your ratings are way too high for all this and I won't go into 'WHY'.


...and your ratings are way too low 

Your ratings are no more/less justifiable than mine, based as they are on our subjective opinions.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> ...and your ratings are way too low
> 
> Your ratings are no more/less justifiable than mine, based as they are on your subjective opinions.


Nothing subjective there.
The word 'subjective' is not even an argument. It became an empty phrase. Too many times repeated when trying to argue with objective facts. It finally lost its strength that it never even had in the first place.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Whatever.  .


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Worthless music has always had a large audience-it's unavoidable. In our day it has become increasingly ubiquitous due to advancements in technology and its relative affordability. Any joe-blow with an app can produce a piece of "music" and upload it on YouTube. As for music functioning as a barometer of a society's health-that's hardly arguable.


It's absolutely true that the production and circulation of home grown music is so much easier now, regardless of quality.

But that doesn't account for sales. How many home grown and self recorded artists make it big without a record company promoting them?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I went through this playlist random-play: Billboard Hits 2010-2019 (btw that article about old music pushing out new music only considered new music that which came out in the last 18 months) - I consider the music which has come out in the last decade as "new".

*Tik-Tok - Kesia*. Repetitive, as expected, but with variety in vocal effects and texture. Infectious beat and melody, as expected. 5/10

*Psycho - Post Malone, Ty Dalla $ign*. Starts with just vocal and synth pad, then slow beat enters. Nice. Yeah the melody is the same phrase over and over until the Chorus appears, which is another phrase repeated four times. Then a Bridge and back to the top. The lyrics are going by too fast for me, but I suspect this is where the main event of the song is. 6.5/10

*Just Give Me a Reason - Pink, Nate Ruess*. This is a traditional Pop ballad complete with acoustic piano accompaniment for the first verse and channel, which leads to the Chorus as it should and carried off well. Synth enters with beat for Chorus. Melodically the song moves around and has a nicely developed arc. The Chorus suitably reaches the highest note. Well-written. 7.5/10

*Harlem Shake - Baauer*. Shouts over drum machine, non-sensical to me. The beat is creatively made, then it gets regular with claps and repeated beeps, then back to the broken rhythm. I keep hearing the name "Eddie", why? A little over half way you can hear the music reach a climax. Not enough going on for me, so 4.5/10

*Cheap Thrills - Sia, Sean Paul*. I liked this immediately, the melody was so catchy. Also the beat has a Latin lilt, and the singing is excellent and doesn't _sound_ obviously tuned (but I'm sure it was, they all are). Not flashy just easy-going and in control but infectious and evocative. I like the variety in the vocal effects, both led and the background, actually mostly in the background. 7/10

*Bad Blood - Taylor Swift, Kendrick Lamar.* Interesting duet, I wouldn't have thought these two artists would meld together, but they do. It is quite a traditional Rap song with rapped verses and then a sung Chorus. Lamar offers a good rap and Swift's contribution is somewhat overshadowed. She only rely shines in the Bridge, the most melodic and textured section, with no beat. Then the triumphal Chorus enters with increased energy and production. Well-done. 7/10

*Black and Yellow - Wiz Khalifa*. Rapped in a monotone with beat and synths. Again I can't catch enough of the lyrics to get anything from the song. 3/10.

*When I Was Your Man - Bruno Mars*. Another Ballad, with piano, and the verse already sounds good. Mars is a good singer and writer, and this song is well put-together. Surprisingly the piano continues throughout, and still the song retains my interest - the true test of good writing that does not depend on production. And the last Chorus actually reduces the energy, nice subtle and effective close, which suits the message well. 8/10.

*Rolling in the Deep - Adele.* Starts with voice and bass, then beat enters. Melody well worked out, and steadily builds up to the first Chorus which lifts as it should. Verse II more produced than the first, but essentially has the same effect, building agin to Chorus II. Surprising me without a Bridge after the 2nd Chorus, but new production sound that leads to a broken down section, pre-Chorus, and the last statement of the hook. Well-written and produced, and of course excellently sung. 7/10.

*Wow - Paul Malone*. I was interested immediately by the creative beat, and haunting vocal. The effect remained until a spooky harmony voice entered, then the texture was simplified and then back to the head. The tempo and beat got me moving, while a drum machine was used I got the feeling that it was played manually. The song ends with a more wide open sound, and extra tweak on the beat. 6/10

*Bad Romance - Lady Gaga*. Powerful production and vocal. This girl is serious, she wants my love. Nice production change for the channel and a bright Chorus. Dance song through and through with the strong bass drum throughout. Bridge has entirely new sound, and reenergizes the song for the last Chorus. 6.5/10

*E.T. - Katy Perry, Kanye West*. Nice rap from Kanye starts this one off, before Katy enters with her breathy chant over claps and beat. Melody has some nice rhythmic syncopation. Chorus very well-done. I am actually enjoying this song. 8.5/10

I think today's Pop is in good hands.

Some of you may think I voted too high, but I give almost any song a 4 for creative effort, and then the song adds points for extra interest or variety, production, texture, singing, lyrics. A song has to be really, really bad for me to vote lower than 4.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Speaking of that article by Ted Gioia, he compared that last 18 months of Pop songs against the previous 70 years of Pop. And in the world of streaming services where it is all there at a click it is no wonder that listeners are taking advantage of that variety of periods, styles, and well, wealth of music.

In the "good" old days we mainly heard our music on the radio and occasionally buying a record - we did not have the opportunity to listen to anything but what was on the current chart, unless for some reason we went looking for it. Few of us did.

So, Gioia distorts the picture. No surprise there, demagogues always do.

I am frankly happy that people are listening to older music, but I also know that the new Pop has a huge audience as it is. I don't see this as a zero-sum game, old music does not push out new music, there is more music being listened to overall from other periods, which should give future songwriters a wider palette of influences.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> So, Gioia distorts the picture. No surprise there, demagogues always do.


A bit of a stretch, don't you think? Growing up in the 60s and 70s I heard classical music on the Loony Tunes. Artists such as Louis Armstrong, Ellington, and Ella Fitzgerald appeared on national TV shows. And there were movies like That's Entertainment celebrating the golden age of Hollywood and the music that provided the soundtracks. And public radio in every city provided an alternative to the day's pop and rock music. And in America, "those who went looking for it" is the way it's always been. Same thing today.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I went through this playlist random-play: Billboard Hits 2010-2019 (btw that article about old music pushing out new music only considered new music that which came out in the last 18 months) - I consider the music which has come out in the last decade as "new".
> 
> .....


Giving Post Malone's 'Wow' and Adele's 'Rolling in the Deep' almost the same rating only shows me that I shouldn't talk to you about music at all. Everything else I think right now would be too much to say and too rude.

Maybe I'll review that same list later.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> A bit of a stretch, don't you think? Growing up in the 60s and 70s I heard classical music on the Loony Tunes. Artists such as Louis Armstrong, Ellington, and Ella Fitzgerald appeared on national TV shows. And there were movies like That's Entertainment celebrating the golden age of Hollywood and the music that provided the soundtracks. And public radio in every city provided an alternative to the day's pop and rock music. And in America, "those who went looking for it" is the way it's always been. Same thing today.


I am not denying that there were ways to hear music other than what was on the radio, but when I watched cartoons I wasn't concentrating on the music. My parents watched the Laurence Welk show every week and I was bored to death. And more importantly this kind of passive listening was not quantifiable. Prior to streaming charts were created from radio play and purchases.

No, my point is that today there is an unprecedented availability of music from across many decades on Spotify and a listener doesn't have to do much to create a playlist of a bunch of music from any decade, any style, if they so desire. Also they may only be listening to a minute or less of a song before moving on. Spotify will still count that. The streaming data is not a reliable indicator of what the reality is, whereas the Billboard chart is a collection of data that is curated more stringently.

Gioia was IMO comparing apples to oranges when he compares pre-streaming decades to post-streaming.

So it is not surprising that today more people are listening to more older music than in decades prior to streaming. If you had to buy something chances are you knew you liked it. On Spotify you can try out something at no extra cost, and I assume more of that is occurring today than in 1980.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I went through this playlist random-play: Billboard Hits 2010-2019 (btw that article about old music pushing out new music only considered new music that which came out in the last 18 months) - I consider the music which has come out in the last decade as "new".
> 
> *Tik-Tok - Kesia*. Repetitive, as expected, but with variety in vocal effects and texture. Infectious beat and melody, as expected. 5/10
> 
> ...


I'd shoot myself if I had to listen to any of this chaff.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> I'd shoot myself if I had to listen to any of this chaff.


I didn't _have_ to listen to it, and don't consider it chaff. I spent a little over a half hour to listen to twelve songs and write the post. No harm done and some enjoyment occurred.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I didn't _have_ to listen to it, and don't consider it chaff. I spent a little over a half hour to listen to twelve songs and write the post. No harm done and some enjoyment occurred.


Enjoyment? You're a human being living on planet Earth, Antone-there's no enjoyment to be had here ... EVER!

:tiphat:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I did a little research on the most popular artists in the 1980s and the 2020s with the Spotify monthly plays:

Most popular artists in the 1980s
Michael Jackson 28,115,546
Prince 9,491,564
Madonna 21,020,606
U2 17,148,884
Bruce Springsteen 13,121,104
Run-D.M.C. 4,141,409
Van Halen 9,807,378
Public Enemy 1,987,838
Billy Joel 17,074,898
The Police 16,216,285

Most popular artists in the 2020s
Drake 53,809,007
Olivia Rodrigo 42,222,147
The Weeknd 78,085,527
Taylor Swift 56,977,842
Morgan Wallen 10,610,416
Ariana Grande 53,872,616
Doja Cat 55,933,813
Justin Bieber 78,090,916
Luke Combs 10,000,284
Pop Smoke 24,926,159

Except for the two Country artists, the artists from the 2020s kill those from the 80s.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> Gioia was IMO comparing apples to oranges when he compares pre-streaming decades to post-streaming.


Yes, for those who have an appetite beyond the mainstream today's technology is not comparable to the relative isolation of past decades. Unless you lived in a major city with several good radio stations.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Billboard WEEK OF APRIL 20, 2019

Just to mention that there are 9 songs on the top 100 here by Billie Eilish.

1. Lil Nas X Featuring Billy Ray Cyrus - Old Town Road
It seems this was many weeks at #1. Not horrible, but pretty much meh. Repetitive and minimalistic. The good thing is that it's short. 3/10

2. Post Malone & Swae Lee - Sunflower (Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse)
Instrumental part is not that bad (those deep sounds remind me of 'Take My Breath Away' by Berlin). Vocal melody is derivative, but it's listenable. 4.5/10

3. Post Malone - Wow
Unlike previous song, this is pretty bad. Talking over boring rhythm. 2/10

4. Ariana Grande - 7 Rings
The verse is weak, but the chorus is kinda interesting. It almost reminds me of something else, those chords in the chorus probably. Listenable, but horrible and shallow lyrics. 3.5/10

5. Halsey - Without Me
Derivative, sterile, listenable. 4/10

6. Jonas Brothers - Sucker
Catchy, yet derivative and forgettable. Better than most music on the new Billboard list. 4/10

7. Cardi B & Bruno Mars - Please Me
Sterile, bland, forgettable. 2.5/10

8. Khalid - Better
Sleeping pill. Bland. Not too horrible. 3/10

9. J. Cole - Middle Child
Monotonous rap. Meaningless. 1/10

10. Marshmello & Bastille - Happier
Bad song. Forgettable. 2/10

11. Billie Eilish - Bad Guy
Interesting rhythm. Creative song to an extent. It wouldn't surprise me that this is the best song here and that is sad. Instrumental riff is also interesting. The change of tempo near the end is out of place, but ok. 5.5/10

12. Sam Smith & Normani - Dancing With a Stranger
I can't stand Sam's whiny voice. Song is relaxing and forgettable. 3.5/10

13. Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper - Shallow
This is a decent song. One of the songwriters is Mark Ronson, so it doesn't surprise me. Style kinda reminds me of Bruce Springsteen. This is actually a SONG. Traces of real human emotion here. So far the best song. 7/10

14. benny blanco, Halsey & Khalid - Eastside
Decent riff, crappy song. 2.5/10

15. Meek Mill feat. Drake - Going Bad
Even with those repetitive piano riff and some interesting sounds, this is still pretty bad. 2/10

16. Ava Max - Sweet but Psycho
A decent pop song even though it's generic and pretty forgettable. Catchy chorus.. 4/10

17. Blueface - Thotiana
Hip-hop crap. So awful that it was brave to release it. 0.5/10

18. Khalid - Talk
Bland just like his previous song. 2.5/10

19. Ariana Grande - break up with your girlfriend, i'm bored
Derivative and boring. 2/10

20. Panic! At the Disco - High Hopes
There's some life to this. At first I thought this would be horrible, but it's actually energetic, fun and listenable. It also has more interesting music elements and it's more developed than any other song on charts. Arrangement is also interesting. Chorus is extremely catchy and I like the aggressive rhythm during it. For some reason I even like this and that was surprising. This isn't music for my taste, but it shows that music can be decent even with modern production. 7/10

21. Luke Combs - Beautiful Crazy
This is some kind of country I guess. Pretty much predictable. 4/10

22. 21 Savage - A Lot
Hip-hop. I've heard worse. I must admit that. 2.5/10

23. Maroon 5 - Girls Like You ft. Cardi B
Interesting rhythm, predictably lame melody. 3/10

24. Ellie Goulding, Diplo, Swae Lee - Close To Me
in the chorus, that 'close to me' part was unexpected. I can give her half star for that. Nothing special, but not bad. 4.5/10

25. Travis Scott - Sicko Mode
Hip-hop that tries to be creative. It sounds like different songs put together. Yes, that was the 'creative' part. I've heard worse. 2/10

26. Nipsey Hussle - Racks In The Middle (feat. Roddy Ricch & Hit-Boy)
Another hip-hop nonsense. 2/10

27. Jonas Brothers - Cool
Catchy in a bad way. Repetitive. Not terrible though. 4/10

28. YNW Melly - Murder on My Mind
Hip-hop. More interesting that the rest of hip-hop, but that ain't saying much. 2.5/10

29. Dean Lewis - Be Alright
Generic ballad and forgettable. 3.5/10

30. Billie Eilish - Bury a Friend
Once again, it's more creative than the rest of the crap, but still nothing spectacular. Interesting rhythms and minimalistic. Some interesting parts. It's ok. 5/10

31. Ariana Grande - Thank U, Next
This is almost like listening to some bland and sappy pop-soul from late 80s/early 90s. Not interesting, but listenable. 4/10

32. Lil Baby & Gunna - Drip Too Hard
Crappy hip-hop. 1.5/10

33. Mustard. Migos - Pure Water
Another hip-hop torture. Even worse than previous. 1/10

34. Calboy - Envy Me
Hip-hop again. Horrible. 1/10

35. Lauren Daigle - You Say
Finally, a song! This is like listening to Adele - very similar voice. Obviously influenced by her. It's a decent ballad. Nothing much impressive, but comparing it to the 95% of this list it's a masterpiece. 6/10

36. Look Back at It - A Boogie Wit Da Hoodie
Those chords from intro and throughout the song are typical Ennio Morricone. Not sure if this reminds me of 'Chi Mai' or something from 'La Piovra'... or it could be something else, but I definitely heard that before.. It could be chords from some old song. Can't figure right now, but it's something that definitely already existed. We have hip-hop over it here. 3/10

37. Post Malone - Better Now
Uninteresting, repetitive, weak. 2.5/10

38. Dan, Shay - Tequila
Sappy, bland and derivative ballad with a few predictable piano chords. 2.5/10

39. Billie Eilish - When the Party's Over
Interesting ballad. At least she is somehow unique even though her music really ain't that special. 5.5/10

40. City Girls - Act Up
Another horrible hip-hop. 1/10

-----------------------
FINAL CONCLUSION.

Overall rating of top 40 from 2019: *3,17/10*
Overall rating of top 40 from 1984: *5,1/10*
Yes, music is definitiely getting worse.... much worse.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I did a little research on the most popular artists in the 1980s and the 2020s with the Spotify monthly plays:
> 
> Most popular artists in the 1980s
> Michael Jackson 28,115,546
> ...


It's hard to understand what is actually the point of those numbers. Young brainwashed people who are on Spotify actually proves what?

Maybe this will help you better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

nikola said:


> It's hard to understand what is actually the point of those numbers. Young brainwashed people who are on Spotify actually proves what?
> 
> Maybe this will help you better:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists


SanAntone's numbers give a better estimate of today's popularity of pop music than the wiki numbers - at least the popularity of the most popular performers. The Spotify numbers compare like time periods (recent listenings in a month's time). The wiki numbers list sales over decades. Recent performers' music has only been available for a much shorter period than the older performers' music has. If you have purchases of present and past music in the last year or so, that would give a much better sense of which music is more popular _now_.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> SanAntone's numbers give a better estimate of today's popularity of pop music than the wiki numbers - at least the popularity of the most popular performers. The Spotify numbers compare like time periods (recent listenings in a month's time). The wiki numbers list sales over decades. Recent performers' music has only been available for a much shorter period than the older performers' music has. If you have purchases of present and past music in the last year or so, that would give a much better sense of which music is more popular _now_.


Correct. Also keep in mind that as LPs gave way to cassettes and then to CDs sales were inflated as many Boomers replaced their music from the 60s and 70s with the latest reissues. But I would think that today most young people, the audience for Pop listen through streaming and don't buy as much.

Much was made of the Ted Gioia article about old music pushing out new music, and I just wanted to check that premise by looking at the monthly plays on Spotify. I do not see any evidence to support Gioia's claim.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Correct. Also keep in mind that as LPs gave way to cassettes and then to CDs sales were inflated as many Boomers replaced their music from the 60s and 70s with the latest reissues. But I would think that today most young people, the audience for Pop listen through streaming and don't buy as much.
> 
> Much was made of the Ted Gioia article about old music pushing out new music, and I just wanted to check that premise by looking at the monthly plays on Spotify. I do not see any evidence to support Gioia's claim.


"Old songs now represent 70 percent of the U.S. music market, according to the latest numbers from MRC Data, a music-analytics firm."

So, he obviously has real data and statistics.

Further:









So, he actually has some data he probably didn't make up. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it's not there.

All that still doesn't change the fact that brainwashed people are listening to bad music. Even if such music dies tomorrow or 50 years later, it's still bad.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> All that still doesn't change the fact that brainwashed people are listening to bad music. Even if such music dies tomorrow or 50 years later, it's still bad.


You keep using the phrase "brainwashed people" which is your insulting way of referring to young people who happen to like music you don't they should.

It does not make your arguments more convincing, if anything it undercuts your credibility.

Showing the viewership of Grammy awards does not indicate what young people are listening to. I myself stopped watching the Grammies decades ago unless someone I knew was nominated. Spotify listening data is the best data to indicate what music is the most popular.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> You keep using the phrase "brainwashed people" which is your insulting way of referring to young people who happen to like music you don't they should.
> 
> It does not make your arguments more convincing, if anything it undercuts your credibility.
> 
> Showing the viewership of Grammy awards does not indicate what young people are listening to. I myself stopped watching the Grammies decades ago unless someone I knew was nominated. Spotify listening data is the best data to indicate what music is the most popular.


Oh, me the horribile!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

nikola said:


> "Old songs now represent 70 percent of the U.S. music market, according to the latest numbers from MRC Data, a music-analytics firm."
> 
> So, he obviously has real data and statistics.


Yes, he presumably has access to data about popular music. A paragraph later in the article he writes, "Only songs released in the past 18 months get classified as "new" in the MRC database, so people could conceivably be listening to a lot of two-year-old songs, rather than 60-year-old ones." So these data tell us little about 2010 - 2020 music versus 1980s music. The Spotify data are more convincing to me.

The data on the Grammys shows a decline in viewership over the past 10 years. Watching the Grammys is distinctly different than listening to music. Maybe there is a correlation, but maybe not. Furthermore, the data show a decline since 2012 and tell us nothing about the popularity of 1980s music compared to the last decade.

It's possible that decades old music is truly more popular. It's possible that there are studies showing changes in various metrics for analyzing music, and those studies may indicate a lowering of musical quality based on those metrics. I really have no idea, and since I hardly ever listen to popular music, I'm unlikely to care strongly. Based on talking to people I know who follow recent popular music and on the discussion in this thread, I would second the view that pop music must be defined. Perhaps there is a much wider spread in musical genres today, and the less popular genres are where the better songs are. And the overall quality of today's music is roughly similar to earlier music.



> All that still doesn't change the fact that brainwashed people are listening to bad music. Even if such music dies tomorrow or 50 years later, it's still bad.


I would guess there are fewer than several dozen brainwashed people alive today unless you define brainwashed people as those whose neural pathways have been modified by external stimuli. In that case everyone is brainwashed.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> You keep using the phrase "brainwashed people" which is your insulting way of referring to young people who happen to like music you don't they should.
> 
> It does not make your arguments more convincing, if anything it undercuts your credibility.
> 
> Showing the viewership of Grammy awards does not indicate what young people are listening to. I myself stopped watching the Grammies decades ago unless someone I knew was nominated. Spotify listening data is the best data to indicate what music is the most popular.


I don't think that the article said that old pop is more popular with young people than new music, but that new music is getting less popular every year.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> Oh, me the horribile!


It's not about you. It's about what you post.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, he presumably has access to data about popular music. A paragraph later in the article he writes, "Only songs released in the past 18 months get classified as "new" in the MRC database, so people could conceivably be listening to a lot of two-year-old songs, rather than 60-year-old ones." So these data tell us little about 2010 - 2020 music versus 1980s music. The Spotify data are more convincing to me.


But the Spotify Data does not show what the article said! It only shows that music from 2010s is currently more popular on Spotify than 80s music. But the article said that current music is getting _less popular than it used to be_ every year. To verify this you would have to analyse the popularity of current hits today compared to current hits 5,6,8 years ago (and potentially also account for a growing Spotify user base).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> But the Spotify Data does not show what the article said! It only shows that music from 2010s is currently more popular on Spotify than 80s music. But the article said that current music is getting _less popular than it used to be_ every year. To verify this you would have to analyse the popularity of current hits today compared to current hits 5,6,8 years ago (and potentially also account for a growing Spotify user base).


I dunno. More than 78 million listeners each month (The Weeknd) seems to indicate strong popularity. I am not going to do what you suggest, and will have to live with the fact that you remain convinced of what you wrote twenty pages ago.

I can live with that.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

chipia said:


> But the Spotify Data does not show what the article said! It only shows that music from 2010s is currently more popular on Spotify than 80s music. But the article said that current music is getting _less popular than it used to be_ every year. To verify this you would have to analyse the popularity of current hits today compared to current hits 5,6,8 years ago (and potentially also account for a growing Spotify user base).


I agree. My comments were focused on the value of the Spotify data versus data from the article in terms of the relative popularity of 1980s music and present music for today's listeners.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> It's not about you. It's about what you post.


Oh, is there something wroooong with what I post???


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> Oh, is there something wroooong with what I post???


Nor is it about whether there is something wrong (or right) about what you post.

The basis of discussion here is what we write. Not who we are (or might claim to be)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The Spotify numbers comparing decades are no surprise. Today's people want to hear today's new music because it is new. People can always hear the older music stored on their own libraries or on any of the Golden Oldies FM radio stations.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Correct. Also keep in mind that as LPs gave way to cassettes and then to CDs sales were inflated as many Boomers replaced their music from the 60s and 70s with the latest reissues. But I would think that today most young people, the audience for Pop listen through streaming and don't buy as much.
> 
> Much was made of the Ted Gioia article about old music pushing out new music, and I just wanted to check that premise by looking at the monthly plays on Spotify. I do not see any evidence to support Gioia's claim.


Except perhaps that the contemporary artists are a smaller group - i.e. they have bigger slices of a smaller pie

The industry seems to be dominated by a smaller number of megastars than it was in the 80s or 90s


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I did a little research on the most popular artists in the 1980s and the 2020s with the Spotify monthly plays:
> 
> Most popular artists in the 1980s
> Michael Jackson 28,115,546
> ...


I want to start out by saying I am not so delusional that I think there is an Illuminati conspiracy to control the minds of teenagers.

I also do not think the teenagers today are less intelligent than the teenagers of the 1960's. When I was 17 on the jerk-o-meter scale of one to ten I was a fifteen.

I am a little weary of saying anything more about the subject because heaven only knows what nonsense I will be accused of this time.

Frankly, I have no idea if the artists of the 2020's are better than those of the 1980's.

I also do not know if one can say the individual songs of Ariana Grande are superior to those of Madonna.

I am familiar with all of the artists on the 80's list. Each one of them had a unique sound world. There is no way one can confuse the music of Billy Joel with Prince.

As an experiment I listened to the music of all of the 2020's artist.

Ironically my favorite was Drake.

I found that I could put these artists into three groups.

Group one: Drake and Pop Smoke. To my ears they seemed to me to be slightly different.

Groups two, the country guys Luke Combs and Morgan Wallen. There were some unique differences in their sound worlds.

The rest of them were in group three. To my ears all the music in group three sounded the same.

Is this good or bad? I don't know. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I am a band junkie. I can become engaged a discussion on who does a better job of conducting _Lincolnshire Posey._

I will let those who know more about this than I do hash this one out.

And I will bow out to those who still think there is something wrong with my ears and that I am delusional.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> Billboard WEEK OF APRIL 20, 2019
> 
> Just to mention that there are 9 songs on the top 100 here by Billie Eilish.


And I actually dig *Billie Eilish*.

I've not ever heard anything from *Bruno Mars* that I DIDN'T like.

The rest I am rather ambivalent, with the exception of *Maroon 5*, whom I think are vastly overrated. So very bland.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> And I actually dig *Billie Eilish*.
> 
> I've not ever heard anything from *Bruno Mars* that I DIDN'T like.
> 
> The rest I am rather ambivalent, with the exception of *Maroon 5*, whom I think are vastly overrated. So very bland.


Billie Eilish is ok. Her approach to music is interesting and she is better than the majority of artists out there today, but still, I wouldn't call her 'great'. I'm not too familiar with Bruno Mars, but from what I heard, I can't say I'm impressed. His music sounds to me like a bland version of older music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

*Billboard - WEEK OF MARCH 17, 1990*

1. Janet Jackson - Escapade
Some cheesy synths in intro. Typical pop of that era. Nothing special, but still better than the majority of music today. Not bad. 5/10

2. Alannah Myles - Black Velvet
Cool rhythm and vocals. Good melody and powerful chorus. A bluesy-pop-rock classic. The highest rating is also because of the great atmosphere. 10/10

3. The B-52's - Roam
Weird and kinda annoying voice. Song is pretty mediocre, but not bad. Half stars less because of that voice. 4.5/10

4. Taylor Dayne - Love Will Lead You Back
Melodramatic and mediocre ballad. Her voice is over the top. Nothing special. 4/10

5. Bad English - Price of Love
Pretty mediocre 80s sounding song sounds like everything good from 80s was squeezed out and nothing left. Listeable, but that's it. 4/10

6. Billy Joel - I Go to Extremes
Billy never disappoints. Great, energetic and melodic pop-rock song with inspired melody. This is how music should be composed. Interesting lyrics too. It deserves the highest rating. 10/10

7. Michel'le - No More Lies
This sounds musically pretty confused and amateurish for some reason. Weird vocals. Not horrible, but there's something off. 3.5/10

8. Phil Collins - I Wish It Would Rain Down
Great melancholic power ballad. Great guitar playing by Eric Clapton. Great backing vocals. Great melody. Some interesting things are going on musically once the bridge starts. Really powerful song. Over the top, but it works. 9.5/10

9. Biz Markie - Just a Friend
There always must be some hip-hop to ruin the experience. This isn't even that bad. Pretty good piano part, kinda funny, especially the singing part that is intentionally bad. 4.5/10

10. D-Mob introducing Cathy Dennis - C'mon and Get My Love
Derivative drivel. Pop trash. 2.5/10

11. Roxette - Dangerous
Decent pop song with catchy chorus. They had some really decent pop songs and some even great. 6/10

12. Lisa Stansfield - All Around the World
Inspired R&B/pop song. Nice atmosphere, great vocals, interesting and good melody, very good arrangement. 8/10

13. Richard Marx - Too Late to Say Goodbye
He had some really beautiful ballads. This is more uptempo pop-rock. Typical 80s sound. Not bad, not impressive. It's ok. 5/10

14. Tommy Page - I'll Be Your Everything
This is a really sappy ballad with weak melody and vocals. 3/10

15. Madonna - Keep It Together
Derivative pop song, uninteresting. 3.5/10

16. Michael Penn - No Myth
A decent pop-rock song with some grunge flavor. 5.5/10

17. Technotronic - Get Up (Before the Night is Over)
Hip-hop/house/whatever. Derivative. Nothing much here. Still, listenable. 3.5/10

18. Paula Abdul - Opposites Attract
Mediocre pop/hip-hop song. 4/10

19. Elton John - Sacrifice
A unique and brilliant ballad that sounds like nothing else. Probably the most 80s sounding song by Elton. Vocals are great, melody is unusual. Fine lyrics. A classic. 10/10

20. Warrant - Sometimes She Cries
Some chords at the beginning that don't work well together IMO. Mediocre, listenable. 4.5/10

21. Luther Vandross - Here and Now
Sappy pop-soul ballad. It's derivative, but listenable, nothing more. 4/10

22. Linda Ronstadt & Aaron Neville - All My Life
Sappy and mediocre ballad. 4/10

23. Kiss - Forever
Listenable pop-rock. 4.5/10

24. Jane Child - Don't Wanna Fall in Love
Derivative, but kinda fun and playful pop. Not bad. 4.5/10

25. Gloria Estefan - Here We Are
Nice melody and atmosphere, great arrangements. Subtle and relaxing. 6.5/10

26. A'me Lorain - Whole Wide World
Overproduced pop trash, but not that bad. Pre Britney era and the singer even looks like her. 4/10

27. The Cover Girls - We Can't Go Wrong
It's ok. Nothing special. 4.5/10

28. Whitesnake - The Deeper the Love
Power pop-rock ballad. Nothing special, but listenable. 5/10

29. Kevin Paige - Anything I Want
Trashy pop, but not too bad. 4.5/10

30. Milli Vanilli - All or Nothing
Pretty bad trash. 3/10

31. Calloway - I Wanna Be Rich
Derivative pop. 3.5/10

32. Stevie B - Love Me for Life
This is a genuinely sappy, derivative and horrific ballad. 2/10

33. Motley Crue - Without You
Another listenable power rock ballad. Not very interesting. 4.5/10

34. Depeche Mode - Personal Jesus
One girl I know is crazy about DM. Many people in my country like them. They're ok, but their music is too cold for my taste. This is one of their best songs. Great riff, good melody and production. 7.5/10

35. Belinda Carlisle - Summer Rain
I don't think I heard this one before. A decent pop song. 5.5/10

36. Michael Bolton - How Can We Be Lovers
Mediocre song. Listenable. 4.5/10

37. Seduction - Heartbeat
Derivative pop-disco, but ok. Mostly rhythm. 4.5/10

38. The Smithereens - A Girl Like You
A decent rock song. 5/10

39. Babyface - Whip Appeal
Uninteresting and derivative pop-soul. Listenable. 4/10

40. The Brat Pack - You're the Only Woman
Derivative and kinda fun trashy pop. 4/10

Overall rating: *5,0/10*


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> I want to start out by saying I am not so delusional that I think there is an Illuminati conspiracy to control the minds of teenagers.
> 
> I also do not think the teenagers today are less intelligent than the teenagers of the 1960's. When I was 17 on the jerk-o-meter scale of one to ten I was a fifteen.
> 
> ...


I cant help but feel that I offended you by implying you believed in a conspiracy. I probably did not choose my words well, but I was responding the idea that psychological and marketing research was influencing what Pop songwriters and producers are creating - *more so than in the past*.

If I did offend you I am sorry.

That said, the fact that we may have more granular data about trends, taste, and buying habits, does not mean that record labels, producers, and songwriters were not using that same methodology in the past. Thirty years ago I can remember meetings with my publisher about what kind of song the labels sought based on then current marketing research and chart performance.

It should come as no surprise that the raison d'etre of Pop music is to move product: promote an artist and run their songs up the charts until the market audience latches onto the next flavor of the month - and repeat the process.

In fact, that process goes back to the very beginning of the modern Pop music market. Irving Berlin wrote songs featuring "ragtime" and "jazz" in the titles in order to exploit those trends, as did all the songwriters in the early 1910s and 1920s, throughout the 20th century.

The real question is do current producers and songwriters have the same integrity about what they're doing as the ones from the past. My answer is an unqualified "yes." The goal is still creating hits by using the available data in order to capitalize on trends and taste at the moment the song will hit the market. That has always been the game.

And sometimes, rarely, art and commerce happen to coincide.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

*Billboard - WEEK OF OCTOBER 3, 1992*

1. Boyz II Men - End Of The Road
"baby this, baby that, baby baby baby". Sappy and derivative ballad, but melodic. It surprises me that it went to #1, but those were the early 90s and things with music were getting more 'complicated'. 5/10

2. Patty Smyth ft. Don Henley - Sometimes Love Just Ain't Enough
I know this song, but probably didn't hear it for many years. Beautiful melody, kinda sad. 7.5/10

3. Bobby Brown - Humpin' Around
Some kind of dance-pop I guess. Not my type of music, but the chorus is very catchy. I like the energy here. Quite good. 6/10

4. TLC - Baby-Baby-Baby
Relaxing early 90s R&B. Generic, but listenable. 4.5/10

5. House of Pain - Jump Around
Way more catchy rap than anything today. It has nice momentum, so it's exciting to an extent. 5/10

6. Hi-Five - She's Playing Hard to Get
Generic R&B/dance. 3/10

7. Guns N' Roses - November Rain
That early 90s almost operatic pop/rock like this or 'Id Do Anything for Love' by Steinman/Meat Loaf was always interesting to listen to. NR is dramatic, musically interesting, and great playing. Not easy to rate, but 8/10

8. K.W.S. - Please Don't Go
Generic dance. 4/10

9. Jon Secada - Just Another Day
Cheesy, but melodic ballad. Musically more competent than almost anything today. 5.5/10

10. Shakespears Sister - Stay
Quite an interesting and unique development of a song. Really good. Good vocals and production. 8.5/10

11. Bryan Adams - Do I Have to Say the Words?
Not bad, but Bryan has a few better ballads. Chorus is quite nice and dramatic. 6.5/10

12. Elton John - The One
Powerful ballad. Great development of a melody, unique piano sound and brilliant playing. Elton had hits every year on Billboard. From 1970 to 1999 he had 57 top 40 hits (even more in top 100) and he suddenly disappeared forever in 2001 from Billboard, not because his music became 'bad', but because musical moguls decided to change trends and that's how they also destroyed many genres. Elton still managed to enter the top 10 almost every time with new albums in the US from 2000 till today because of very large fan base. For this song, without doubt 10/10

13. Arrested Development - People Everyday
Boring hip hop. Nothing musically interesting here. 3/10

14. Def Leppard - Have You Ever Needed Someone So Bad?
Pretty much forgettable, but ok power ballad. 5/10

15. Firehouse - When I Look Into Your Eyes
A decent power ballad. 6/10

16. Jade - I Wanna Love You
Listenable R&B. 4.5/10

17. Toad The Wet Sprocket - All I Want
Some type of generic alternative rock. Nothing much interesting here. Forgettable. 4.5/10

18. En Vogue - Giving Him Something He Can Feel
Decent R&B. Good vocals. 5.5/10

19. PM Dawn - I'd Die Without You
This is some kind of ambiental R&B ballad it seems. A decent song. 5.5/10

20. En Vogue - Free Your Mind
This is really good. Aggressive pop-rock song, powerful chorus, great vocals. 7.5/10

21. Technotronic - Move This
Meaningless dance. Boring and repetitive. 3.5/10

22. SNAP! - Rhythm Is A Dancer
This is already a mid/late 90s sound. Techno/dance or whatever it is. I was never a fan, but in Europe all that crap became very popular. This actually ain't that bad. Listenable. 5/10

23. Color Me Badd - Forever Love
Sappy bland ballad. 3/10

24. Charles & Eddie - Would I Lie To You?
This is pretty memorable, especially the chorus. Interesting song. 7.5/10

25. Tom Cochrane - Life Is A Highway
Never heard this one before. A decent and energetic pop-rock song. 5.5/10

26. N2Deep - Back To The Hotel
Instrumental part is pretty good, but when rap starts it becomes pretty awful. 3.5/10

27. Sir Mix-A-Lot - Baby Got Back
Early hip-hop was even funny and exciting unlike today when it's always vulgar and brain dead. This is fun. It reminds me of Eminem. 6/10

28. Mary J. Blige - Real Love
Repetitive and not very interesting. 4/10

29. Céline Dion - Nothing Broken But My Heart
Not one of her better ballads. Forgettable, but listenable. 4.5/10

30. Madonna - This Used To Be My Playground
Nice melancholic atmosphere, but musically pretty vague. Not bad. 5.5/10

31. INXS - Not Enough Time
Pretty uninteresting song. Nothing much happens. 3.5/10

32. Genesis - Jesus He Knows Me
Fun, but they have better songs. 5.5/10

33. Del Amitri - Always the Last to Know
It's ok. Nothing special. Forgettable. 4.5/10

34. TLC - What About Your Friends
Weak R&B song. 3.5/10

35. Divine Thing - The Soup Dragons
A decent rock song. 6/10

36. Billy Ray Cyrus - Achy Breaky Heart
Pretty generic. 4/10

37. Jodeci - Come & Talk To Me
Style over substance. Pretty weak. 3.5/10

38. Annie Lennox - Walking on Broken Glass
Good pop song. 6/10

39. Cathy Dennis - You Lied To Me
Forgettable pop. Kinda similar to 'All Around the World' by Lisa Stansfield, but much weaker. 3.5/10

40. k.d. lang - Constant Craving
Good song. Very nice chorus. 7.5/10

Overall rating: *5,26*
Probably the highest rated top 40 yet.

I'll probably try 2000's next time.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola, I admire your diligence, your application, your care that you put into reviewing these songs and compiling these lists. I would not begin to have the patience for it. Yet how many of these songs--any songs--would you want to hear again, hear twice? My criterion for any pop or rock song is whether I would ever want to hear it again. For me, rather than a grading system of steps 1 to 10 at the beginning of a session of listening to a week's Pop 40 tunes, I would throw out all of those that fail to make the first cut (hear it again). The overwhelming majority of songs fall into that abyss. Only after that gleaning will I venture to grade that handful of remaining songs, and those on maybe a 1 to 5 ranking, and a very,very few ever reaching that 5. Just my approach; yours is another.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Pop music of today, or on any other generation, is created for the purpose of expression, but with the goal of making a living.

As a 70 year old, it is simple. I am not current Pop music's target market. I lost track of current Pop culture & music 20 years ago. Reality TV was the final straw.

I have 50 years of lives musical pleasure to enjoy, and I can continue to find new Classical, Jazz, Pop and Rock that I find to be creative via the Internet. I am finding international media sources online that reveals that we are all at it, pumping out the good, the bad, and/or the indifferent.

I as: is Pop Rock? or is Rock Pop. Or are they synonyms? I submit that Classical music was Pop music in their respective era(s). Good is pleasing, Bad is not, and the stuff in the middle is boring. Always will be.

We will never have identical tastes in Music, Art, and Literature. Who is the target market? It may not be you.

That's what I think. I could be wrong.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> It should come as no surprise that the raison d'etre of Pop music is to move product: promote an artist and run their songs up the charts until the market audience latches onto the next flavor of the month - and repeat the process.


I'd say this needs a slight adjustment: the raison d'etre of _the _Pop music _industry _is to move product. Not all artists are content to be "promoted" by the business, which is one reason why indie labels emerge from time to time.

A while back, I asked (of Red Terror, I think) how our newly democratised pop wannabes come to the attention of the record-buying public. Red blamed them (the wannabes, that is) for pop being in a poor state, because they could do things for themselves on a laptop; the industry that finds them and manages them are blameless and, apparently, invisible. Red didn't answer.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> nikola, I admire your diligence, your application, your care that you put into reviewing these songs and compiling these lists. I would not begin to have the patience for it. Yet how many of these songs--any songs--would you want to hear again, hear twice? My criterion for any pop or rock song is whether I would ever want to hear it again. For me, rather than a grading system of steps 1 to 10 at the beginning of a session of listening to a week's Pop 40 tunes, I would throw out all of those that fail to make the first cut (hear it again). The overwhelming majority of songs fall into that abyss. Only after that gleaning will I venture to grade that handful of remaining songs, and those on maybe a 1 to 5 ranking, and a very,very few ever reaching that 5. Just my approach; yours is another.


I think it's first of all good for me to listen to songs from charts from different eras to see for myself if music is really getting worse. I'm trying to be neutral (objective) as much as possible. Of course that is not entirely possible, but after hearing many songs I can come up with some conclusion that means something, at least to me. I believe that a concept like SONG always has some objective value to it. Not all songs could be equally great.... not all musicians or bands are equally talented. Of course, it's hard for someone who doesn't like hip-hop (rap) to be objective while rating it, but I even heard rap on this 90s list that I actually liked quite a bit. I also heard so many songs in my life (actual pop-rock songs with actual melodies) that I'm quite capable (to an extent) of recognizing the difference between good and bad songs. Yes, there were always mediocre songs out there and that's a normal thing, but when 80% of the songs are not mediocre, but horrible, that represents a problem to me. I'm really not that old... I'm not old at all, yet I can't comprehend that crap on the charts today. To me it's obvious so far that something 'went wrong' with pop music. I haven't liked pop music on the charts since I was 20 and that shouldn't happen. Listening to charts also gave me an insight into how classic pop-rock music and diversity of styles were completely removed from the charts in favor of pretty much horrible r&b and hip-hop music since 2000. While listening to those charts I can see about what I was wrong or right. The sad fact is that music is really getting progressively worse every year even after I thought that it couldn't get much worse. 
I also take into consideration that there are some songs that I could start to like more after more listening. Some songs that I rate here I actually have listened to more than once.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> I'd say this needs a slight adjustment: the raison d'etre of _the _Pop music _industry _is to move product. Not all artists are content to be "promoted" by the business, which is one reason why indie labels emerge from time to time.
> 
> A while back, I asked (of Red Terror, I think) how our newly democratised pop wannabes come to the attention of the record-buying public. Red blamed them (the wannabes, that is) for pop being in a poor state, because they could do things for themselves on a laptop; the industry that finds them and manages them are blameless and, apparently, invisible. Red didn't answer.


I divide music up into genres in my mind for reasons of thinking about music comparatively/critically as well as an organizing principle for my collection - not in a definitive way but just for my own convenience. But for the purpose of this thread I've assumed the definition of "Pop music" as those songs/artists that are the most popular at a given time as reflected by radio programming, Spotify plays, and Billboard charts.

So Indie music is "Indie" and not Pop according to my definition unless a song produced within the Indie milieu becomes very popular. Neither is World music, Jazz, Blues, Folk, but Pop could include Country, R&B, and Hip-Hop. I might add that much Hip-Hop originally came out on grassroots independent labels although they eventually got subsumed into major label partnerships for distribution and promotion.

I take you point, but I stand by my comment because what you call the "Pop music industry" includes the producers and songwriters responsible for crafting the hits by singers and bands. This creative community works hand in hand with the recording label promotion machinery, as well as being briefed on the latest marketing data and trends by publishers, label sales and A&R staff, and even journalists.

However these same producers and songwriters got into writing songs as teenagers for the same reason as any songwriter does - they wanted to create music after being inspired by the Pop music they loved. This motivation never really disappears no matter how jaded they may become because of the vagaries of the Popular Song Industry.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^nikola, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my previous thoughts on your evaluation of weekly Top-40 lists. There is a key factor at work in influencing how we react to current music as we age, that factor is that we accumulate over the decades a stored (cassettes, CDs, iPods, YouTube, vinyl, etc., plus our memories) and accumulating library of songs that please and pleased us over those decades. This is a growing reservoir of music that we remember that suits us, hence it is increasingly difficult for new songs to compare well against what we have already warehoused in our minds. This combined with the well-agreed-upon notion that at least 95% of everything (surely in music/art) is crap, pretty well guarantees that we will sense that standards are declining, music is getting worse, etc. I fall totally into this mindset, regarding the "Long Sixties", that is, music from, say, the Beach Boys through to Led Zep's _In Through the Out Door_ as being the pinnacle of Pop/Rock. But still I have found any number of songs from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s that appeal to me, but it is a diminishing quantity as the decades pass for the reason cited above--so much good stuff from earlier years in the memory banks already.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Except perhaps that the contemporary artists are a smaller group - i.e. they have bigger slices of a smaller pie
> 
> The industry seems to be dominated by a smaller number of megastars than it was in the 80s or 90s


I really think you are on to something :tiphat:

Frequently the short posts are the best ones.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> I think it's first of all good for me to listen to songs from charts from different eras to see for myself if music is really getting worse. I'm trying to be neutral (objective) as much as possible. Of course that is not entirely possible, but after hearing many songs I can come up with some conclusion that means something, at least to me. I believe that a concept like SONG always has some objective value to it. Not all songs could be equally great.... not all musicians or bands are equally talented. Of course, it's hard for someone who doesn't like hip-hop (rap) to be objective while rating it, but I even heard rap on this 90s list that I actually liked quite a bit. I also heard so many songs in my life (actual pop-rock songs with actual melodies) that I'm quite capable (to an extent) of recognizing the difference between good and bad songs. Yes, there were always mediocre songs out there and that's a normal thing, but when 80% of the songs are not mediocre, but horrible, that represents a problem to me. I'm really not that old... I'm not old at all, yet I can't comprehend that crap on the charts today. To me it's obvious so far that something 'went wrong' with pop music. I haven't liked pop music on the charts since I was 20 and that shouldn't happen. Listening to charts also gave me an insight into how classic pop-rock music and diversity of styles were completely removed from the charts in favor of pretty much horrible r&b and hip-hop music since 2000. While listening to those charts I can see about what I was wrong or right. The sad fact is that music is really getting progressively worse every year even after I thought that it couldn't get much worse.
> I also take into consideration that there are some songs that I could start to like more after more listening. Some songs that I rate here I actually have listened to more than once.


First, you say you haven't like Pop music since you were 20, and *that shouldn't happen*.

I think just the opposite, it is precisely what ought to happen. Pop music is constantly changing as one generation outgrows the styles that had been popular during their high school years. As a new generation enters that demographic, new Pop styles emerge, and then fade out in another five years or so. This is a cycling which has occurred for decades, going back to at least the 1920s.

I am curious exactly how old you are. I would like to understand what music was on the charts when you were in high school.

This morning I've been listening to a box set called The Brill Building Sound, which contains Pop music by a group of professional songwriters who wrote the music that was sung by artists, from approximately the late 1950s through the mid-1960s. This ended when self-contained bands began to write their own material. This was the Pop music I grew up on, from age 10-18, which by then the band culture had become the majority of what was on the radio, and I thought generally of better quality than the earlier Pop music.

I admire the craft of the songwriting of the Brill Building community. Generally they wrote better-crafted songs than the bands - but the style was older and less "cool."


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I've got several box sets that trace the history of Pop music from 1910 through the early 1970s:

*Smithsonian Anthology of American Popular Song - 1910-1955
The Brill Building Sound - 1956-1966
Hitsville USA: Motown 1959-1971
The Complete Stax-Volt Singles - 1959-1968
Sun Records Collection - 1950s-1970s
The Doo-*** Box - 1950s*

These collections contain some of the best Pop music created but also a large number of ditties. Overall, IMO the quality is comparable to the current crop of Pop, just written in different styles.

For me, the best songs are written by professional songwriters, although these have less attitude than those written by the artists for themselves. But often an artist is self-indulgent in their writing which is not the case with professionally crafted songs.

Nashville has had the longest continuous history of professional songwriters supplying the material for performers. And IMO the kind of songs written for the Country market have changed dramatically since the 1940s-1960s. Today there isn't much stylistic difference in what Nashville produces and the rest of the pop markets. More and more Hip-Hop style has entered even Country writing as steel guitars and fiddles have disappeared except in Bluegrass and Old Time derivative songs.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> First, you say you haven't like Pop music since you were 20, and *that shouldn't happen*.
> 
> I think just the opposite, it is precisely what ought to happen. Pop music is constantly changing as one generation outgrows the styles that had been popular during their high school years. As a new generation enters that demographic, new Pop styles emerge, and then fade out in another five years or so. This is a cycling which has occurred for decades, going back to at least the 1920s.
> 
> ...


I'm 41.
I can't agree that we like music because we were exposed to it as teens. That may be true for some, but not all people. 
My taste was always quite complicated. The first time I ever noticed music was when I was probably about 4 or 5 year old and it was the intro of the movie and I remember that I thought to myself how beautiful the music is. It wasn't probably the first time I heard music, but it was the first time that I heard something, felt it and instantly loved it. For some reason I was mesmerized by that piece at that moment. It was this scene and music:





When I was about 10-11 years old I fell in love with the Twin Peaks soundtrack (composed by Angelo Badalamenti). Other kids were listening to some pop music I didn't care about. 
My dad liked classical music and opera. I didn't care much about opera, but I did love some classical music and I still love many classical pieces and listen to it often. Dad also liked some pop music. I actually noticed that for some reason we had pretty similar taste and it really wasn't that he influenced me. He almost never played the LPs he had. Most of those LPs weren't that much interesting considering music.

In my teens I got interested in popular music, but it was mostly music from the 50s. 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s that I liked. After that in high school (mid to late 90s) all those dance music and boy bands that were very popular here I really didn't like. It was simplistic, catchy, soulless and almost everybody my age liked electronic dance music and listened to it. It simply wasn't music that I needed, that I could feel or connect to it on any level.

I was never following charts and I was more interested in older pop-rock, not because they 'made it for me', but because it's music of higher quality, more complex, more interesting melodies, more real emotions and stronger atmosphere.

There was never 'a time' or 'trend' that I liked. I only liked certain songs, mostly by certain musicians. With time I started to listen to hundreds of soundtracks by Ennio Morricone. Nobody introduced me to him. His music was the greatest discovery ever to me and I still think that he might be the greatest composer ever (Quentin Tarantino would agree with me).

All music that I like I discovered on my own and I was never listening to music that everybody around me was crazy about. While being 10 to 15 years old, I was rather enjoying dark, atmospheric and beautiful music from Twin Peaks than listening to some electronic beats in modern music.

Some people are easily influenced by trends. I was never influenced by anything. If I don't like something, I don't like it and that's it. People who are easily influenced by everything that was offered to them mostly don't even really care about music and that's my opinion. I was discovering music on my own and listening to music that I liked. Nothing makes me biased towards modern music. I really strongly believe that it has become much worse than it used to be in previous decades. And it's getting worse.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> I'm 41.
> I can't agree that we like music because we were exposed to it as teens. That may be true for some, but not all people.
> My taste was always quite complicated. The first time I ever noticed music was when I was probably about 4 or 5 year old and it was the intro of the movie and I remember that I thought to myself how beautiful the music is. It wasn't probably the first time I heard music, but it was the first time that I heard something, felt it and instantly loved it. For some reason I was mesmerized by that piece at that moment. It was this scene and music:
> 
> ...


Thank you for this informative post about your involvement with music when you were young. I think you were unique, but so was I to some extent. I also went after finding music off the beaten track - but I am much older than you (70) and I was doing this in the '60s and have never stopped doing it.

That said, when I was in high school the music on the radio was The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Animals, Kinks, The Beach Boys, and Motown - along with Bobby Vinton, Percy Faith, Ricky Nelson and others of that style. It was a mix of wonderful music and dreck, IMO. My friends and I started a band and covered many of the tunes we liked: Van Morrison's "Gloria"; "96 Tears" by Question Mark and the Mysterians; "Louie, Louie" by the Kingsmen; "Time is on My Side" and "Not Fade Away" by the Stones; "You Really Got Me", "All Day and All of the Night" by the Kinks; "Hot Fun in the Summer Time by Sly and the Family Stone; and many other of the songs from this period from 1965-1969. We also played some local hits by John Fred and the Playboys and The Uniques, and some R&B from New Orleans (I grew up in Louisiana).

Everyone I knew listened to the local Top Forty radio station and we all loved the same music - except I also listen to the local Black station and heard funk and soul and R&B. I still listen to some of it - but even during high school my tastes began to shift to Jazz, Folk, and Classical - which is still the music I listen to most.

Having grown up on Top Forty radio of the '60s did not hurt me. In fact it was good training for my later career as a songwriter. I have been a student of songwriting my whole life, breaking them down and analyzing how the song was put together. Then when I moved to Nashville this intensified since that town is a hotbed of songwriters and a huge priority placed on The Craft.

It is now second nature for me to listen to a song as craft, and it doesn't matter the style, songs are put together in similar ways. So this is why I balk at your premise that today's Pop is worse than previous decades of Pop because I can hear the craft at work in the songs.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I really did not gain an appreciation of mainstream pop music until I was a bandsman in the army and I was forced to play it. We had some great arrangers and we had great charts of many contemporary pop hits.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

*Billboard - WEEK OF FEBRUARY 15, 2003*

1. Jennifer Lopez feat. LL Cool J - All I Have
Music was becoming more and more derivative, homogenized and sterile. This is already more bland than almost anything 10 years earlier. It's not even that bad R&B/hip hop, but it's mostly style over substance. Uninteresting and inoffensive. 4/10

2. Ja Rule ft. Ashanti - Mesmerize
Are really in the US all teens suddenly interested only in R&B and hip-hop? Really bad hip-hop and horrible male vocals.1.5/10

3. B2K, P. Diddy - Bump, Bump, Bump
"yea, ah, mm, aha, ah, ye, come on" - I always hated hearing those in hip-hop. It's somehow retarded. Bad. Chorus is kinda tolerable. Latin guitar is out of place. 2.5/10

4. 50 Cent - In Da Club
Another hip-hop crap. Some listenable rhythm and synth riff and that's it. 3/10

5. Christina Aguilera - Beautiful
Aguilera is one of those singers who has a voice and doesn't know how to use it. She must beat every song to death with oversinging and singing out of tune (especially live). I really hate her voice and 'style' of singing. She is one of the most forced and unnatural singers I've ever heard. Not a fan of such bland pop ballads from the last 20 years. Sounds fake and lifeless. 3.5/10

6. Avril Lavigne - I'm With You
The best one yet on this list and that ain't saying much. Soft rock. Kinda ok song, kinda bland. 5/10

7. Justin Timberlake - Cry Me A River
Synthetic, repetitive and sterile drivel. 2.5/10

8. Aaliyah - Miss You
Bland background R&B music. Nice vocals and relaxing, but that's it. 3.5/10

9. The Chicks - Landslide
Kinda ok, kinda bland country-pop song. Pretty sound of the guitars in a song. Not bad. 5/10

10. JAY-Z ft. Beyoncé Knowles - '03 Bonnie & Clyde
There is Morricone's 'Ecstasy of Gold' and the beginning of the video, but it seems it's not part of the song. Typical rap... some melancholic chords and guitars in it. Couldn't care less. 3/10

11. Missy Elliot feat. Ludacris - Gossip Folks
90% of this list is hip-hop/R&B and it's really tiring. Bad, but I've heard worse. 2/10

12. Nelly ft. Kyjuan, Ali, Murphy Lee - Air Force Ones
Another horrible hip-hop 'song'. Really bad. 1.5/10

13. R.kelly - Ignition
Another boring and derivative R&B. Lame. 3.5/10

14. Nivea ft. Brian Casey, Brandon Casey - Don't Mess With My Man
Soulless R&B rubbish. 2/10

15. Kid Rock feat. Sheryl Crow - Picture
Bland and lifeless soft country-rock. 3.5/10

16. 50 Cent - Wanksta
Another horrible and repetitive hip-hop crap. 1/10

17. Santana Featuring Michelle Branch - The Game Of Love
Bland and derivative. Even Santana's guitar can't save this. 3.5/10

18. 3 Doors Down - When I'm Gone
Attitude over substance. Pretty generic and bland rock/metal song. 3/10

19. Eminem - Superman
He has more tolerable stuff. This is really bad. 1.5/10

20. Good Charlotte - Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous
Derivative. After half of this list, I already feel like someone sucked the life out of me. All these songs are tragically awful. 3/10

21. John Mayer - Your Body Is A Wonderland
He always sounds like he has a need to console teen girls. Even with a more 'creative' approach than the rest of the songs on this list, his dry voice and forgettable songs makes him always annoyingly bland. 4/10

22. Puddle Of Mudd - She Hates Me
Decent riff. It sounds like some grunge from the early 90s. Mediocre, but still more creative than the rest of the crap on this list. 5/10

23. Eminem - Lose Yourself
Considering the enormous ocean of toxic hip-hop crap, this is one of the most creative hip-hop songs ever. Dramatic and angry melody, great forward momentum and energy. The 'chorus' is really good. Really fine piece of hip-hop if ever existed something like that. There's something about this piece that simply works well. 8/10

24. Missy Elliott - Work It
Repetitive and bad hip-hop. Not the worst I heard though. 2.5/10

25. Tyrese - How You Gonna Act Like That
Bland and sappy R&B. 2.5/10

26. Erykah Badu Featuring Common - Love Of My Life (An Ode To Hip Hop)
Style over substance. It tries hard to sound 'artistic' and it's still lame. 3/10

27. 2Pac - Thugz Mansion
I've heard worse... not much worse. Yeah, life is tough, but this is not the music expression I want to hear. 3/10

28. Mark Wills - 19 Somethin'
Finally something that's not hip-hop. Nothing special, but listenable country-rock or whatever it is. Melody ain't bad. 5.5/10

29. No Doubt ft. Lady Saw - Underneath It All
Derivative reggae stuff. 3.5/10

30. t.A.T.u. - All The Things She Said
Catchy jingle, but nothing more. It lacks more substance. Listenable. 4.5/10

31. P!nk - Family Portrait
Musically kinda interesting and lame at the same time. Mediocre. 4.5/10

32. Terri Clark - I Just Wanna Be Mad
Derivative, but kinda listenable country song. At least it has a melody. 5/10

33. Blake Shelton - The Baby
Another country song. Sad ballad. Not impressive, but not bad... decent melody, sad lyrics. 6.5/10

34. Smilez & Southstar - Tell Me (what's going on)
Not a bad instrumental part. Listenable chorus. Rap part is usually uninteresting. 4/10

35. Dru Hill - I Should Be...
Derivative R&B 3.5/10

36. Jennifer Lopez & Styles P & Jadakiss - Jenny From The Block
Playful and derivative R&B. 3.5/10

37. Field Mob - Sick Of Being Lonely
Derivative R&B. 3.5/10

38. Aaron Lines - You Can't Hide Beautiful
Some kind of derivative country-pop. Really bland. 3.5/10

39. Emerson Drive - Fall Into Me
Another really bland country-pop song. 3/10

40. Gary Allan - Man to Man
Another country song and once again it's really bland. 3.5/10

Overall rating: *3.5*

Wow! Things really went fast downhill in probably less than few years. 
90% of mostly unlistenable R&B/hip hop and 10% of mostly generic country songs. I didn't even expect it would be this bad.
2 decent country songs and 2 decent hip-hop R&B songs. That's about it. 
What I find interesting is that music really hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. If I would compare music from 1972 and 1992 there is a huge difference in musical styles and approach to making music, but between 2002 and 2022 there really wasn't almost any change. Horrible R&B/hip-hop is still on the charts and it sounds almost the same. The only difference is production that became more synthetic and sterile. 
'Pop' music really became disposable junk since 2000.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

*Billboard - WEEK OF OCTOBER 9, 1961*

1. Ray Charles - Hit the Road Jack
Now this is slightly different R&B than today. Simple, yet very catchy and memorable. Organic production. Good. 7.5/10

2. Roy Orbison (without featuring 5 other hip-hop 'artists') - Crying
Really nice song. Good composition. Though, I prefer the newer version with k.d. Lang. This one is too fast and somehow light. 7/10

3. Bobby Vee - Take Good Care Of My Baby
A derivative and naive little song typical for that time. Nothing special, but nice. 4.5/10

4. Dion - Runaround Sue
Great tune! Good melody, great backing vocals. Cool! 8.5/10

5. The Dovells - Bristol Stomp
Playful and generic little song. Nothing special, but listenable. 4/10

6. Bobby Darin - You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby
Nothing special, but fun. 4.5/10

7. Dick & Dee Dee - The Mountain's High
Nothing much is happening here. 3/10

8. Elvis Presley - Little Sister
Generic r'n'r. It's ok. Elvis has a great voice as usual. 4.5/10

9. Hayley Mills - Let's Get Together
This is probably child singing!? Derivative jingle and nothing much going on here. A minute and half long. 3.5/10

10. Bob Moore & His Orchestra - Mexico
Some nice and generic instrumental tribute to Mexico. It's ok. 4.5/10

11. The Highwaymen - Michael
Simple and nice spiritual song. 5/10

12. The Paris Sisters - I Love You How You Love Me
All songs back then were so gentle and naive. What people were like I wonder. Nice melody, harmonies and string arrangements. This is similar to some songs by Badalamenti. I don't think I heard this one before. I like it. 6/10

13. Troy Shondell - This Time
Generic. Ok. 4.5/10

14. Lee Dorsey - Ya Ya
Cathy and simplistic soul/r'n'r. It's ok. 5/10

15. Tony Orlando - Bless You
Sappy, predictable. Ok. 4.5/10

16. The Lettermen - The Way You Look Tonight
Sappy (of course). Not very interesting. 4/10

17. Jimmy Dean - Big Bad John
There is some talking over hammer hitting. Cowboy song I guess. Musically not interesting. 3.5/10

18. Sue Thompson - Sad Movies (Make Me Cry)
Pretty sappy and boring. Girly voice. 3.5/10

19. The Chantels - Look In My Eyes
Also pretty lame and sappy song. Not interesting. 3.5/10

20. Johnny Tillotson -- Without You
All songs are about girl-boy problems. At least it's not about sex, gangsters, money and parties like it's in the last 20 years. Naive and sappy as usual. 4/10

21. Elvis Presley - (Marie's The Name) His Latest Flame
Good rhythm, ok melody, great vocals. 5.5/10

22. Chubby Checker: The Fly
Another one of his songs that sounds like a weaker version of his 'The Twist' song.. there are 2 popular 'Twist' songs by him if I remember correctly. Not too bad, but pretty predictable. 4/10

23. Lonnie Donegan - Does Your Chewing Gum Lose its Flavour?
This is kinda different. Fun and catchy. Too short. 5.5/10

24. The Drifters - Sweets for My Sweets
This is pretty good and very catchy. It's a fun and exciting song. Nice piano playing. I like it a lot. 8/10

25. Dave Brubeck, The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Take Five
Great piano riff and sax melody. Fun middle part with rhythm section. A little bit of jazz for a change. Very good piece. 8.5/10

26. Stick Shift - Duals
Instrumental. Surf rock probably. I think I heard it somewhere else, probably in an old Tom & Jerry cartoon. Really good piece of music. 7.5/10

27. Barry Mann - Who Put The Bomp?
Typical and fun doo-***. Not one of the best examples, but it's fine. 6/10

28. The Everly Brothers - Don't Blame Me
Some strange chords from the beginning of the song. Sappy and boring melody. 2.5/10

29. Roy Orbison - Candy Man
Some type of bluesy r'n'r. Predictable, but it's ok. 4.5/10

30. Bobby Lewis - One Track Mind
Childish little song. Not very interesting, but not bad. Interesting instrument whatever that is. 4.5/10

31. Del Shannon - So Long Baby
Great intro. Never heard this one. It's a mediocre song, yet still kinda more creative than the majority of the list which is no surprising considering the 'Runaway' song he's known for. This is ok. Way too short. 5/10

32. Connie Francis - He's My Dreamboat
Good voice, but the song is so-so and mostly boring. She's repeating 'dream, dreamy and dreamboat' words too many times. 4/10

33. The Jive Five With Joe Rene And Orchestra - My True Story
Pretty generic. 3.5/10

34. Ray Peterson - Missing You
Sappy and not much interesting ballad. If Elvis would sing this song, it would probably sound better. 4/10

35. Jose Jimenez - The Astronaut (Parts 1 and 2)
This ain't song. It's a comedy sketch, so I won't rate it.

36. Brenda Lee - Fool Number One
Something like country-pop I guess. Not bad, not impressive. 4.5/10

37. The Flares - Foot Stomping
Derivative and repetitive, but fun. 5.5/10

38. The Fleetwoods - (He's) The Great Imposter
Mediocre tune. 4.5/10

39. Ricky Nelson - Everlovin'
Mediocre tune. 4.5/10

40. Don Shirley - Water Boy
Never heard this one before. Instrumental. Interesting and melodic piano jazzy music. Very good piece. 8/10

Overall rating: *5.0*

It's also interesting how much music has changed between 1961 and 1981 while between 2001 and 2021 nothing much happened. Music simply died and that's it. 
All these little early 60s tunes, even though they're mostly simplistic and predictable, had more humane sound and soul than anything today. You could also, just like back in the 80s, always find some good or even great songs. That has become almost impossible since 2000.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*nikola:* "40. Don Shirley - Water Boy
Never heard this one before. Instrumental. Interesting and melodic piano jazzy music. Very good piece. 8/10"

The 2018 film _Green Book_ was about Don Shirley, a Black gay man, touring the American South with his white driver and the various humiliations he encounters, some of which he counters with great dignity. My now-long-deceased brother-in-law was a big fan of Don Shirley but neither he nor I knew at the time that he was gay.

_Water Boy_ was Don Shirley's take on a classic Black work song made popular by a great recording by Paul Robeson--Shirley's version is a fine instrumental rendering of Robeson's performance....


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> *nikola:* "40. Don Shirley - Water Boy
> Never heard this one before. Instrumental. Interesting and melodic piano jazzy music. Very good piece. 8/10"
> 
> The 2018 film _Green Book_ was about Don Shirley, a Black gay man, touring the American South with his white driver and the various humiliations he encounters, some of which he counters with great dignity. My now-long-deceased brother-in-law was a big fan of Don Shirley but neither he nor I knew at the time that he was gay.
> ...


Yes, it was a good movie. I realized that's the musician from the movie, but I didn't know about him prior to that.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> All these little early 60s tunes, even though they're mostly simplistic and predictable, had more humane sound and soul than anything today. You could also, just like back in the 80s, always find some good or even great songs. That has become almost impossible since 2000.


I guess if you wish to post mini-reviews of these songs from various years no one can stop you - but really, it is just your opinion.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I guess if you wish to post mini-reviews of these songs from various years no one can stop you - but really, it is just your opinion.


No, it isn't just my opinion. :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> No, it isn't just my opinion. :tiphat:


In what sense are your evaluations not your opinions? Clearly the Top 40 is a quantifiable fact, and one's rating of any song is a fact, but the fact is pure opinion. My evaluation of a song you loathe may be that it is wonderful--that too is a fact.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I guess if you wish to post mini-reviews of these songs from various years no one can stop you - but really, it is just your opinion.





nikola said:


> No, it isn't just my opinion. :tiphat:


Yes, it is.

Earlier on in this thread, people disagreed with you all the time, but as your opinion is rebar and concrete, they've mostly stopped bothering.

That said, I value your opinions, and weigh them against my own, when appropriate.

Your *1961 Top 40 List* is reasonable, although some songs that you rate highly I might rate even _MORE_ highly, and some you thought were awful I might rate even lower than you did.

As for *Take Good Care of My Baby*, I prefer the cover version the *Beatles* did, less than a year later. As for *Bobby Vee*, this is probably his best recording. Most of his other releases were crap, with vocals that seem barely passable, and there's something about him that really rubs me the wrong way - just a vibe I get that he was a real jerk.

Here's that *Beatles* version, with George Harrison on lead vocal, with McCartney adding harmony vocals here and there.






.

. . . And while Bobby Vee did have the first release of this song, it was written by Gerry Goffin & Carole King, with *Carole King* recording a demo of it to give to Bobby Vee.






She talked about it in 1981


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Popular culture in increasingly degenerate—good is bad; black is white; morality is relative. Of course, this has happened before—over and over again for thousands of years and it simply cannot be helped. This cultural degradation is mirrored in most of our art and music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> Earlier on in this thread, people disagreed with you all the time, but as your opinion is rebar and concrete, they've mostly stopped bothering.


No, it isn't... and we can go on like this forever.

I don't know why people try so hard to prove to everyone that music is subjective. I don't agree with that. Or does any one of you really believe that I must also start to believe that the quality of all songs is subjective?

You say "Most of his other releases were crap, with vocals that seem barely passable". No, you're wrong, he is better than Beethoven. It's just your subjective opinion that his music was crap.

Do you see now how stupid that sounds?
It sounds stupid just like when you or SanAntone try to prove me that some derivative and synthetic R&B rubbish from these days is equally good as 'Child in Time' by Deep Purple or "Africa" by Toto.
No, it isn't all subjective. Just because horrible people told you that all music is subjective so they could sell you crap doesn't mean that all music is subjective. It's not. It never will be.

You can say that you prefer Leonard Cohen over Bob Dylan or Guns N' Roses over Aerosmith - that is subjective and a matter of taste, but quality in music isn't that subjective no matter how hard you try to prove that to me. Even Leonard Bernstein didn't think that all music is equally great and he understood music better than all of us here. He was even mocking some classical composers because of how bad their music was.
Yes, there are some people out there (including me) who don't give a ****** about 'tolerant approach' to horrific and crappy music.

You guys simply can't handle that someone has an opinion that is different from yours. If you think that quality of music is subjective, then your opinion about quality of music is also subjective and you can't say that you are right when you say that your opinion is the correct one. Thinking that music quality is a subjective thing is actually a subjective opinion.

Let me have my opinion about music and let me believe that the quality of music is not a subjective thing. 
You can believe whatever you want about music. It's not up to me to change your beliefs.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Good art isn't subjective, there are standards. I am not sure why some refuse to acknowledge this fact.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> No, it isn't... and we can go on like this forever.
> 
> I don't know why people try so hard to prove to everyone that music is subjective. I don't agree with that. Or does any one of you really believe that I must also start to believe that the quality of all songs is subjective?
> 
> ...


Yes, but your reviews don't analyze the songs with any kind of objective criteria. You just make general comments, "It's catchy" "nice song" "good composition". Well why is good composition? If you went back and read my reviews of songs you will find specific comments about the writing, about the structural aspects, how the melody functioned in the different sections; specifics about the texture and production.

But even with these specific comments, they are still subjective judgments based on what I value in songwriting. But I have worked with publishers and songwriters about how to write a good song, and know something about song construction.

You are presenting your opinions as objective facts, without any foundation.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> Good art isn't subjective, there are standards. I am not sure why some refuse to acknowledge this fact.


Oh Good Gracious! It's clear that relative newcomers to TC have not participated in or even are aware of the marathon debates here between the Objectivists and the Subjectivists over whether the evaluation of Art (any art at all) is nothing more than pure, unadulterated opinion--either one's individual opinion or the groupthink opinion of some audience or peer group or "experts" (which experts?) As a card-carrying Subjectivist and veteran of the psychic wars, I can assure you that esthetics is purely personal or the result of linking one's criteria to those of a peer or "authoritative" group of like-minded individuals. Tasting and evaluating wine or ice cream is a perfect parallel-it's all opinion. Even if God liked or disliked some art, it would still be an opinion.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Oh Good Gracious! It's clear that relative newcomers to TC have not participated in or even are aware of the marathon debates here between the Objectivists and the Subjectivists over whether the evaluation of Art (any art at all) is nothing more than pure, unadulterated opinion--either one's individual opinion or the groupthink opinion of some audience or peer group or "experts" (which experts?) As a card-carrying Subjectivist and veteran of the psychic wars, I can assure you that esthetics is purely personal or the result of linking one's criteria to those of a peer or "authoritative" group of like-minded individuals. Tasting and evaluating wine or ice cream is a perfect parallel-it's all opinion. Even if God liked or disliked some art, it would still be an opinion.


Agree to disagree.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> Agree to disagree.


Fair enough.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, but your reviews don't analyze the songs with any kind of objective criteria. You just make general comments, "It's catchy" "nice song" "good composition". Well why is good composition? If you went back and read my reviews of songs you will find specific comments about the writing, about the structural aspects, how the melody functioned in the different sections; specifics about the texture and production.
> 
> But even with these specific comments, they are still subjective judgments based on what I value in songwriting. But I have worked with publishers and songwriters about how to write a good song, and know something about song construction.
> 
> You are presenting your opinions as objective facts, without any foundation.


Rick Beato already gave you objective judgments. I don't need to go into music theory to hear why something is generic, uninspired and simply bad. Either you have 'it' or you don't have it as a musician. 
I mentioned a few times while reviewing generic songs that chords in those songs are always predictable, that melodies are bland, that production is synthetic, derivative or great in better songs. Those are not subjective things.
I don't need to write down that song is bad because G# didn't follow C. Music is made for casual people. Even Leonard Bernstein while reviewing 60s pop songs said for some songs simply "I like it" and that's it. He didn't explain every time why he liked it.

So far, you are the one who has shown many times that you are presenting your own opinion without any foundation. Even when you receive valid facts from many sources considering chords, melodies, production, etc. you still don't like what you hear. You want to bring all this conversation to its beginning hoping that you will have more luck while trying to prove that I'm wrong even though you already only proven that you disregarded all facts simply because you didn't 'like those'. Rick Beato is wrong, analyses of music that showed it became more simplistic than ever before is also wrong, that guy writing about how old music is killing new music is wrong. Only you are right. 
Unfortunately, I don't believe you or agree with you. I agree with the facts that are presented by people who are in the music business and who have much more credibility than some guy who gives the same rating to Adele's song and Post Malone's horrific crap while pretending that you're giving 'valid facts' when you are describing some technical things in songs that aren't even there.

We really don't have anything to talk about. Trust me on that and move on.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> Good art isn't subjective, there are standards. I am not sure why some refuse to acknowledge this fact.


Yes, well those standards still need to be articulated and shown to either be present or absent in a song. For a review to rise about subjective opinion, an analytical basis for the comments should accompany statements such as "it is good composition."

But I am of the opinion that it is difficult to find truly objective criteria for judging music. However, in Classical music this can be achieved with the test of time. For Pop songs it is more about the actual construction of the song. There fairly specific guidelines about writing Pop songs: the function of each section (verse, channel/pre-chorus, chorus, bridge) that in a badly written song will be imprecise and inconsistent, as opposed to a well-written song where the song is tightly written with each section building as it should to develop and land.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

From October 9, 1961.

. . . .

9. Hayley Mills - Let's Get Together
This is probably child singing!? Derivative jingle and nothing much going on here. A minute and half long. 3.5/10

From the very popular 1961 Disney movie _The Parent Trap_. And yes, Hayley was a child at the time. I loved it as a 9-year old. And that's who was buying the song, I suspect.

I don't know if Lindsay Lohan sang in the remake.

. . . .

16. The Lettermen - The Way You Look Tonight
Sappy (of course). Not very interesting. 4/10

Don't know if your comment is about the song or the performance. Written by Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields and first sung by Fred Astaire, the song, of course, is one of the great standards from the American Songbook. Try Frank Sinatra's version, recorded at about the same time.






. . . .

25. Dave Brubeck, The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Take Five
Great piano riff and sax melody. Fun middle part with rhythm section. A little bit of jazz for a change. Very good piece. 8.5/10

According to Wikipedia the best selling jazz single (off one of the most successful jazz albums) of all time. Admittedly, although I have the album on SACD, it's not one of my favorites. But then, these things are subjective.

. . . .

40. Don Shirley - Water Boy
Never heard this one before. Instrumental. Interesting and melodic piano jazzy music. Very good piece. 8/10

Here's the version I first heard. 






. . . .


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Rick Beato already gave you objective judgments. I don't need to go into music theory to hear why something is generic, uninspired and simply bad. Either you have 'it' or you don't have it as a musician.
> I mentioned a few times while reviewing generic songs that chords in those songs are always predictable, that melodies are bland, that production is synthetic, derivative or great in better songs. Those are not subjective things.
> I don't need to write down that song is bad because G# didn't follow C. Music is made for casual people. Even Leonard Bernstein while reviewing 60s pop songs said for some songs simply "I like it" and that's it. He didn't explain every time why he liked it.
> 
> ...


Actually I have given many reasons why I disagree with your representation of Rick Beato's opinion and the other articles and clips you've posted. I spent 30 years (actually 50 years but I don't count the first 20 when I was playing in Jazz bands) in the music industry (and am still quasi-active though retired, I still have a publisher plugging my songs) and have first hand experience with all of these issues. Rick Beato can have his opinion and at least he does back it up with some analysis. But it is my impression that he is biased.

The premise that old music is "killing" new music was not proven to my satisfaction, especially when I compared which artists were getting the most plays on Spotify.

I don't know what your agenda is with this need to prove that Pop has deteriorated. But it just seems strange to me that you are so invested in that idea.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Sinatra's version sounds like a completely different song, but I'm not a fan of the song anyway.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Actually I have given many reasons why I disagree with your representation of Rick Beato's opinion and the other articles and clips you've posted. I spent 30 years in the music industry (and am still quasi-active though retired, I still have a publisherr plugging my songs) and have first hand experience with all of these issues. Rick Beato can have his opinion and at least he does back it up with some analysis. But it is my impression that he is biased.
> 
> The premise that old music is "killing" new music was not proven to my satisfaction, especially when I compared which artists were getting the most plays on Spotify.
> 
> I don't know what your agenda is with this need to prove that Pop has deteriorated. But it just seems strange to me that you are so invested in that idea.


You can be in the music business, but considering what you are saying here and considering your reviews I have my opinion about that. We can go on like this forever. There's no purpose in that. We disagree and that's it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Sinatra's version sounds like a completely different song, but I'm not a fan of the song anyway.


Which proves you don't know a good song when you hear one.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> some guy who gives the same rating to Adele's song and Sam Malone's horrific crap


That's because the songs are mutually exclusive, I don't compare one song to another song, I judge how well a songwriter handled the craft of his specific song. A song must stand on its own, and depending upon how well the sections work I will come to an appreciation of how well it was written.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone, I'm not in the music business and I don't play any instrument, but I did compose a few simple pieces for my own enjoyment.

I'd like to hear what you composed.

Here is some of my music:
http://sndup.net/8f9z

http://sndup.net/j69n

http://sndup.net/nrf3

http://sndup.net/tzzd

http://sndup.net/bgmw

I'm not sharing it because I'm interested in your or anyones opinion. I'm sharing it for the sake of sharing it. I know how it sounds. I'd like to hear your music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> That's because the songs are mutually exclusive, I don't compare one song to another song, I judge how well a songwriter handled the craft of his specific song. A song must stand on its own, and depending upon how well the sections work I will come to an appreciation of how well it was written.


That Post Malone's thing'was hardly a 'song'.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, well those standards still need to be articulated and shown to either be present or absent in a song. For a review to rise about subjective opinion, an analytical basis for the comments should accompany statements such as "it is good composition."
> 
> But I am of the opinion that it is difficult to find truly objective criteria for judging music. However, in Classical music this can be achieved with the test of time. For Pop songs it is more about the actual construction of the song. There fairly specific guidelines about writing Pop songs: the function of each section (verse, channel/pre-chorus, chorus, bridge) that in a badly written song will be imprecise and inconsistent, as opposed to a well-written song where the song is tightly written with each section building as it should to develop and land.


In reference to certain types of art (painting, music)-true objectivism isn't possible but we can certainly approximate it thanks to established artistic standards. And yes, effective music criticism requires an articulation of these standards, otherwise it's just an opinion. Of course, one can't expect lay-men to expound on the subject; people sometimes like what they like regardless of its quality.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> SanAntone, I'm not in the music business and I don't play any instrument, but I did compose a few simple pieces for my own enjoyment.
> 
> I'd like to hear what you composed.
> 
> ...


You've got a good command of melody and form. If you know someone who writes lyrics, co-writing is a good way to take your writing to the next level.

Here'a song I wrote with *Chris Knight* (we wrote together a lot)

Lee Ann Womack - Send It On Down






This song was something of a minor hit I wrote with *Bobby E. Boyd*

Mark McGuinn - That's A Plan






Joy Lynn White - Looking For You (wrote it with *Joy*)






Michelle Wright - Like an Angel (wrote this with *Pat Buchana*n, the great guitarist, not the political commentor)






Chris Knight - North Dakota (another one with *Chris*)


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> You've got a good command of melody and form. If you know someone who writes lyrics, co-writing is a good way to take your writing to the next level.
> 
> ....


What would these songs be classified as? Country-pop-rock I guess. My least favorite would be 'That's a Plan'. Not bad, but the rest of the songs are really nice. Much better than music on the charts. 
'Send It Down', 'Looking for You' and especially 'Like an Angel' are songs that I could listen to more than once. 'North Dakota' has some great playing and organic production.

I think it's too late for me to start anything with music. I should learn way too many things to be able to start anything on a professional level. I simply started to play with the keyboard a few years ago and that is how I composed 40+ compositions. It was fun to discover interesting themes out of nowhere and to develop compositions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Case Closed! Based on the above dialog between SanAntone and nikola, it is conclusively demonstrated that there is only opinion at the basis of esthetics. All esthetics is subjective and personal without regard to the consensus of "experts". Everyone's taste is valid and authentic; each individual has the absolute right to fully embrace as "good" or "bad" any artwork of any sort that they choose, no matter what the "experts" say. All heard/seen in art that is recognized as such (good/bad) by a conclave of "experts" is the result of essentially a vote of some group or body, either general (general public} or specific (peer group of like-minded individuals). It is thus always opinion. Which is the best flavor of ice cream?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> It is thus always opinion.


That's certainly an opinion. :tiphat:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> What would these songs be classified as? Country-pop-rock I guess. My least favorite would be 'That's a Plan'. Not bad, but the rest of the songs are really nice. Much better than music on the charts.
> 'Send It Down', 'Looking for You' and especially 'Like an Angel' are songs that I could listen to more than once. 'North Dakota' has some great playing and organic production.


Thanks for your comments. They were all recorded in Nashville and would have to be considered Country or Alt-Country. All of these songs were singles and charted. "That's a Plan" looked like a Top Ten song, we were getting adds each week - until 9/11 happened and radio programming changed overnight. It peaked at 25 on the Billboard Country chart. Of course I don't complain since so many people lost so much more than my little song being dropped, and I ended up making six figures on the song.



> I think it's too late for me to start anything with music. I should learn way too many things to be able to start anything on a professional level. I simply started to play with the keyboard a few years ago and that is how I composed 40+ compositions. It was fun to discover interesting themes out of nowhere and to develop compositions.


Music is supposed to be fun, and it can be a great way to wind down after a long day, and also develop a part of yourself that can't be expressed any other way. Good luck with your music and you never know where it could lead.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> But I am of the opinion that it is difficult to find truly objective criteria for judging music. However, in Classical music this can be achieved with the test of time.


How? Just cause there's some group of "cultists" hundreds of years after the time of A thinking A is great, A's greatness is objective? https://www.talkclassical.com/22451-why-do-people-consider-18.html#post2228293


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

We had thousands of posts on this already, and neither the subjectivists nor the objectivists moved an inch in their point of view. Do we really want to go there again?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> That's certainly an opinion. :tiphat:


Well played! :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*Art Rock:* "We had thousands of posts on this already, and neither the subjectivists nor the objectivists moved an inch in their point of view. Do we really want to go there again?"

No, not necessarily. But it is fun to see who is in which camp.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? Just cause there's some group of "cultists" hundreds of years after the time of A thinking A is great, A's greatness is objective? https://www.talkclassical.com/22451-why-do-people-consider-18.html#post2228293


I do think that a consistent consensus, over a long period of time, judging a work to be great is closer to being objective than any other measure we have. In the case of popular music, we have a more than 100 year history of recorded songs and those songs which continue to get recorded and performed also benefit from a consensus over time and can be accepted as great songs. These are called "evergreens" in the industry because they remain active year after year.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I do think that a consistent consensus,


So you think "general consensus" reflects "objective truth". How does this apply to your view on John Cage vs. John Williams?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> So you think "general consensus" reflects "objective truth". How does this apply to your view on John Cage vs. John Williams?


He didn't quite say that..."closer to being objective than any other measure."

That's still some way from an absolute judgement.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> So you think "general consensus" reflects "objective truth". How does this apply to your view on John Cage vs. John Williams?


As Forster pointed out I did not say "general consensus" reflects "objective truth".

Using my metric of test of time, John Cage has been considered an important 20th century composer for approximately seven decades, which is good enough IMO to have formed a consensus. John Williams still has a ways to go before a comparable amount of time will have elapsed. But whether he will be judged a great Film Music composer or Classical Music composer I can't say, although I have my guess.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ John Williams hasn't got long to wait then. He's been composing for film and TV since 1958!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> ^ John Williams hasn't got long to wait then. He's been composing for film and TV since 1958!


I said Cage had been considered an important composer for about 70 years (since the 1950s). I don't think Williams has been considered important or great since 1958. I know he is held in high regard now, but don't know how far back that assessment has been widespread, nor if after his death his music will still be performed.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I said Cage had been considered an important composer for about 70 years (since the 1950s). I don't think Williams has been considered important or great since 1958. I know he is held in high regard now, but don't know how far back that assessment has been widespread, nor if after his death his music will still be performed.


All I said was that he's not got long to wait (if 70 years is some kind of threshold). He certainly scored some notable movies in the early 70s, before the franchises that made him mega famous. You obviously have some doubts. I don't, but I do doubt that I'll be around to celebrate any kind of centenary of Williams movie scores.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yes, there will "always be people" discussing Cage. How do we determine whether or not something has withstood "the test of time"? By popularity? How do we know something is popular because it has depth or is superficially pleasing? Is it the "tyranny of the majority" that decides it?
It's 100% subjective.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, there will "always be people" discussing Cage. How do we determine whether or not something has withstood "the test of time"? By popularity? How do we know something is popular because it has depth or is superficially pleasing? Is it the "tyranny of the majority" that decides it?
> It's 100% subjective.


Oh, I have always maintained that even the consensus over time is still a collection of subjective responses. But after the passage of several hundred years and a composer and works are consistently considered great, that collection of subjective assessments solidifies into something with more weight than one person's subjective opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> But after the passage of several hundred years and a composer and works are consistently considered great


There is no absolute distinction between "What you consider great" and "What pleases you." What determines which category something falls into is only your subjective opinion**.



> that collection of subjective assessments solidifies into something with more weight than one person's subjective opinion.


A certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread:

// "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.

In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is." //

Also it** is largely dependent on, and formed by your subjective, personal experiences:


hammeredklavier said:


> Let's say there are composers (or works) "A" and "B".
> With A, you didn't see his (its) "merits" at first, but you've had roughly 1000 hours of listening to his music (it), and now you "recognize" them. (At least you think you do.)
> With B, you've had only 10 hours of listening to his music (it). At this point, you treat B the same way you treated A back then when you had only 10 hours of listening to A.
> 1. Would you decide that A is "objectively superior" to B artistically anyway?
> ...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> A certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread:
> // "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.
> 
> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is."




I agree with this excerpt from someone's post. However, there is still the probability that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a great musical achievement. Where there is smoke there is fire.

But I am the wrong person to defend "greatness" in music, I don't care enough to continue a long debate on the issue. I haven't ever considered greatness important, despite being aware of the tradition of some composers being considered greater than others. The music I listen to has nothing to do with that tradition, and most of my favorite composers are not considered great, nor would I make an argument that they are.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

FYI: Thoughty 2's real name is Arran Lomas.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Originally Posted by SanAntone said:


> View Post
> I guess if you wish to post mini-reviews of these songs from various years no one can stop you - but really, it is just your opinion.





Quote Originally Posted by nikola said:


> View Post
> No, it isn't just my opinion.





nikola said:


> No, it isn't... and we can go on like this forever.
> 
> I don't know why people try so hard to prove to everyone that music is subjective. I don't agree with that. Or does any one of you really believe that I must also start to believe that the quality of all songs is subjective?
> 
> ...


At last. You agree that it's your opinion. That's all I was pointing out.

You can quantify music scientifically all you want, but it doesn't give you a full analysis without the subjective component, and the acknowledgement that music affects different people in different ways. IT'S AN ART.

As I see it, you are simply trying to make a case that today's music isn't as good as the music YOU like, which happens to be music from the 1980s, I gather. You're using analytics such as chords or harmony to bolster your case, as if it were hard and fast evidence. But musical complexity only tells HALF the story.

I could use those same analytics to "prove" that music from the decade 1965-1975 is far superior to that of the 1980s. But there are so many other aspects of music other than the simple mathematics to consider. For instance, there's CONTEXT, and technology, and culture, and even the available instruments.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Just one other thing: THIS post from HammeredKlavier sort of backs up my POV quite well, and in a couple of ways.



hammeredklavier said:


> Originally Posted by SanAntone said:
> 
> 
> > View Post
> ...


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Thanks for your comments. They were all recorded in Nashville and would have to be considered Country or Alt-Country. All of these songs were singles and charted. "That's a Plan" looked like a Top Ten song, we were getting adds each week - until 9/11 happened and radio programming changed overnight. It peaked at 25 on the Billboard Country chart. Of course I don't complain since so many people lost so much more than *my little song* being dropped, and *I ended up making six figures on the song*.
> 
> Music is supposed to be fun, and it can be a great way to wind down after a long day, and also develop a part of yourself that can't be expressed any other way. Good luck with your music and you never know where it could lead.


Congratulations on your success. Very few can actually claim that sort of "triumph".


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> At last. You agree that it's your opinion. That's all I was pointing out.
> 
> You can quantify music scientifically all you want, but it doesn't give you a full analysis without the subjective component, and the acknowledgement that music affects different people in different ways. IT'S AN ART.
> 
> ...


Yes, but my opinion is objective since I can hear music. Here we go again. People who think all music is equally good don't need to say 'this is good' or 'this is bad'. Why should I care if someone likes something if that means nothing to me since everything is subjective? Even SanAntone is mentioning 'craft'. Suddenly, when we are talking about 'craft' things are getting objective?
How is that possible? Why don't we all fart into the microphone and sell our subjective masterpieces then? How do we know that some people wouldn't like our farts if everything is subjective? It seems that there are still criteria, right?

Also, you know about Beethoven's 'Allegro con brio' from the 5th Symphony, right? 
Why is that mvt. more known and more popular today than his 3rd mvt. from 2nd Symphony? Why is that if everything is subjective?

What about other classical popular pieces? 
Why is Mozart's 1st mvt. from the 40th Symphony or his Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or his Requiem or Turkish March or 2nd mvt. from Clarinet Concerto in A Major popular? Why are those pieces among some others way more popular than hundreds of his other compositions? Is there something that makes them objectively better or people simply pick with closed eyes and ears what they will play to casual listeners for 200 years?

I remember that there were actually some reasons why some classical music is the most popular even today and that doesn't change much over time. Why is that? Maybe because the majority of humanity subjectively decided that something is more interesting to hear than something else? Maybe that 'ooh, I really love that' or 'wow, this is great' in the end means much more than any philosophy on this forum and it's more objective than anything else. Maybe Allegro con brio is objectively better than many other Beethoven pieces.

I listen to my own music more often than anything that is released these days because I believe my music is better. To me, that is objective and why shouldn't it be? What is 'quality' in music these days? Probably slick production since there isn't any quality content there. I prefer weaker production and better content just like I prefer the horrible sound quality of Allegro con brio than some horrific 'song' by Post Malone that's perfectly produced on his laptop. Majority of people can be brainwashed, but not for centuries.

Now, I'll play this piece I composed since it's objectively better than anything on the charts these days. I recorded it with the worst microphone out there and glued together different parts in Audacity:
http://sndup.net/hp2d


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> Yes, but my opinion is objective since I can hear music. Here we go again. *People who think all music is equally good* don't need to say 'this is good' or 'this is bad'. Why should I care if someone likes something if that means nothing to me since everything is subjective? Even SanAntone is mentioning 'craft'. Suddenly, when we are talking about 'craft' things are getting objective?
> How is that possible? Why don't we all fart into the microphone and sell our subjective masterpieces then? How do we know that some people wouldn't like our farts if everything is subjective? *It seems that there are still criteria, right?*


Nobody thinks all music is equally good.

And as for criteria, of course there are criteria. We even agree what some of them are - good melody, for example.

It's the application of the criteria, which criteria should apply, and where the authority for these criteria comes from that is subjective.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> ^ Nobody thinks all music is equally good.


How if it's all subjective?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> How if it's all subjective?


If it's "all subjective", you have to ask each individual what they think. Ask me. I'd say that there is music that I rate highly and music that I don't bother rating at all. Look at the top ten I reviewed a few pages back. I made clear that some songs were "better" than others - you even commented on my ratings.

But I also made clear that my ratings were based on each song relative to the others - not based on any criteria other than my own. As Art Rock said a few posts back, there have been many debates between "the subjectivists" and "the objectivists", and there has been no progress. One reason is because of the straw man (rearing its head again here) that the subjectivists' position is that all music is of equal quality. AFAIK, none of the subjectivists here hold that position (though I'm not sure how many members here would identify as a 'subjectivist').


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> A certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread:
> 
> // "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated [etc]


From this thread, back in 2018 - Assumption of greatness


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Composer Gordon Goodwin wrote  a commentary on modern pop music after receiving his Grammy Award.
I think he has a good point.



> When discussing the problem of American pop music the base issue is not the performers. Many of them are talented and capable. But *the industry has adapted a musical language that is striking in it's banality. I believe that this is largely due to a shocking lack of chromaticism* in the music. Not to get overly pedantic about it, but simply put, *these composers and performers use only the white keys on the piano*.
> Their melodies and the chords they choose are based solely on the diatonic scale of whatever key they have chosen.
> 
> *This is akin to the elimination of adjectives in the written language. It's the difference between the sentence "I was mad." and the sentence "I was shaking with violent and uncontrolled anger!"* One wonders if they ever wonder what those black keys on the piano are even there for?
> ...


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

chipia said:


> Composer Gordon Goodwin wrote  a commentary on modern pop music after receiving his Grammy Award.
> I think he has a good point.


Interesting point. I agree about chromaticism. Though, you can compose with only white keys meaningful music, but it's not that the industry cares. They only care about profit. It's nice to hear 'wrong' notes sometimes in music, to hear something 'off' that works... or how to put it. If they are using only 2 or 3 or 4 chords that everybody else uses, then everything sounds predictable and the same and that's the main problem I believe. Someone who is talented and who cares can compose something meaningful even with the most used 3 chords, but musicians who want money don't care about that. Music industry doesn't care about music anymore because they have adapted their target audience to the same crap for the last 20 years during which nothing really changed in pop music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

The use of chromaticism (or in this case key change) was sent up in Diana Ross' 'Chain Reaction' video promo. The producers tear their hair out everytime the song changes key at the chorus and the video could be seen as a mockery of the industries reliance on formulaic progressions and how this song does not conform to the predicted way.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> The use of chromaticism (or in this case key change) was sent up in Diana Ross' 'Chain Reaction' video promo. The producers tear their hair out everytime the song changes key at the chorus and the video could be seen as a mockery of the industries reliance on formulaic progressions and how this song does not conform to the predicted way.


Bee Gees always had that problem with songs to change keys. They should be expelled from the music industry, but I'm afraid it's too late. One should never change a key in a song. It's a devilish thing to do. Human brain can't comprehend that.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^We'll have to disagree on that nikola.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> ^^We'll have to disagree on that nikola.


:lol:
It's a fact that chords are BAD! 
:devil:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> Composer Gordon Goodwin wrote  a commentary on modern pop music after receiving his Grammy Award.
> I think he has a good point.


Is he a Pop songwriter? These issues you have brought up about the "death of harmony" and now "lack of chromaticism" in Pop music, I think miss the point, and don't understand Pop music. If Pop music had the sophistication of advanced harmony and melodic chromaticism, then another kind of music would emerge which is melodically and harmonically simple, and rhythmically visceral.

Oh, but wait, that is what Pop music often is.

We humans often enjoy that kind of music.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> The use of chromaticism (or in this case key change) was sent up in Diana Ross' 'Chain Reaction' video promo. The producers tear their hair out everytime the song changes key at the chorus and the video could be seen as a mockery of the industries reliance on formulaic progressions and how this song does not conform to the predicted way.


Great pop song!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> Great pop song!


Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" also changes keys with every verse.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> How if it's all subjective?


You are deliberately ignoring what I said. I NEVER said it's ALL "subjective".

I said that the objective components tell only HALF the story.

The "worth" of music is half objective and half subjective. Music is partly science and partly art.

One cannot assess any art by ignoring either the objective or subjective components.

Analytic data cannot determine whether an apple is "better" than an orange.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

chipia said:


> Composer Gordon Goodwin wrote  a commentary on modern pop music after receiving his Grammy Award.
> I think he has a good point.


He certainly has an opinion.



> [...]It's the difference between the sentence "I was mad." and the sentence "I was shaking with violent and uncontrolled anger!" [...] *For me, *this is why so much of American pop music is uninteresting. *Chromaticism adds nuance to music. It adds tension and ambiguity. The proper balance between diatonicism and chromaticism is the key to music with balance and appeal.* If you take a song or a composition with those elements, and then add the emotion of the performers we heard last night, then you have something! But today's pop musicians never really learned how to incorporate this language in their work. Singers are unable to navigate chromatic intervals with their voices.
> 
> *This is not to say you cannot have effective music without chromaticism. *But composing should be a series of deliberate choices. Choices informed by your training AND your intuition. Many of today's performers rely on the latter and have neglected focusing on the former.
> 
> ...


Looking at the emboldened pieces: 
"For me", he says, signalling his opinions coming up.
"Chromaticism...[etc]" - all opinions
"This is not to say..." - acknowledging alterntive opinions - you can have effective music without nuance, tension, ambiguity etc
"The line I'm trying..." - acknowledging that the artist should do what's right for them.

And the opening statement I quoted - there is a place for both kinds of sentences, depending on context and the purpose of the writer.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" also changes keys with every verse.


I like that song too - though not so much as Chain Reaction. I'm not sure whether the key changes are particularly significant in my liking.



pianozach said:


> You are deliberately ignoring what I said. I NEVER said it's ALL "subjective".


I'm waiting to see if nikola will ignore my responses to "how if it's all subjective"!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> today's pop musicians never really learned how to incorporate this language in their work. Singers are unable to navigate chromatic intervals with their voices.


I doubt this is true. Some of today's singers are incredibly agile with their voices, and I am willing to bet that most producers and songwriters who have had success know a large body of music in various styles and choose to write in the manner they do for musical and stylistic reasons, not because they are ignorant and cannot write in a style that would garner Gordon Goodwin's approval.

Btw I listened to some of Mr. Godwin's music. He has a big band and writes lite-Jazz sounding stuff. It's okay, well done, but certainly not cutting edge.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Is he a Pop songwriter? These issues you have brought up about the "death of harmony" and now "lack of chromaticism" in Pop music, I think miss the point, and don't understand Pop music. If Pop music had the sophistication of advanced harmony and melodic chromaticism, then another kind of music would emerge which is melodically and harmonically simple, and rhythmically visceral.
> 
> Oh, but wait, that is what Pop music often is.
> 
> We humans often enjoy that kind of music.


Elton John uses unusual chords, inverse chords and his music is usually more complex and I enjoy it more than some simplistic pop that always uses the same 3 chords. I guess that the fact that he is the 4th best selling artist/band ever says that I'm not alone in liking his music. There are many people out there who want to hear good harmonies and melodies, interesting key changes etc. Many people want to hear something they didn't hear before. Ain't that what music is about that you hear a song that doesn't sound like a thousand songs you heard before that one? What's the point in listening to something that sounds like everything else?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> You are deliberately ignoring what I said. I NEVER said it's ALL "subjective".
> 
> I said that the objective components tell only HALF the story.
> 
> ...


That's not what I was asking YOU. I wrote something else considering classical music etc. It's obvious that after a few hundred years people find some classical pieces more interesting to listen to than other pieces. Why is that if everything is subjective? It's obviously isn't subjective then. 
The analogy of orange and apple only works if you compare pop music to folk music, not if you compare two pop songs.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Elton John uses unusual chords, inverse chords and his music is usually more complex and I enjoy it more than some simplistic pop that always uses the same 3 chords. I guess that the fact that he is the 4th best selling artist/band ever says that I'm not alone in liking his music. There are many people out there who want to hear good harmonies and melodies, interesting key changes etc. Many people want to hear something they didn't hear before. Ain't that what music is about that you hear a song that doesn't sound like a thousand songs you heard before that one? What's the point in listening to something that sounds like everything else?


Yes, many people want to hear more complex songwriting. And many of the same songwriters do both. Lieber and Stoller, for example, wrote simple Blues songs like "Kansas City" as well as more nuanced songs like "Is That All There Is".

But my problem with this premise is that it assume there is no need for the simple songs, the songs which are dance songs, joyously infectious but trivial ditties.

There is a place for all of it, and it all serves a purpose in our lives.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> I
> I'm waiting to see if nikola will ignore my responses to "how if it's all subjective"!


I didn't ignore it. You just stated your opinion and I didn't think that you made some arguments that I should try to disprove. You agree with yourself that your opinion about quality of music is subjective and I agree with myself that my judgment considering the quality of music is objective.
So, we both agree.... we agree with ourselves... at least that is something


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> That's not what I was asking YOU. I wrote something else considering classical music etc. It's obvious that after a few hundred years people find some classical pieces more interesting to listen to than other pieces. _*Why is that if everything is subjective?*_ It's obviously isn't subjective then.
> The analogy of orange and apple only works if you compare pop music to folk music, not if you compare two pop songs.


Because sometimes, people's subjective opinions coincide.

Yes, lots of people like Elton John. That makes him popular. (And rich, but I digress). Not everyone likes Elton John. That doesn't mean they must be wrong not to like him, or that his fans are wrong either.

It certainly means that it's the opinions about Elton that are most important, not that there are some criteria which make his songs objectively good.

Unless you hold that all those who don't like Elton are incapable of recognising objectively good music?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> I didn't ignore it. You just stated your opinion and I didn't think that you made some arguments that I should try to disprove. You agree with yourself that your opinion about quality of music is subjective and I agree with myself that my judgment considering the quality of music is objective.
> So, we both agree.... we agree with ourselves... at least that is something


I didn't say you did ignore it...I said I was waiting to see if were going to. And you have.

You are not prepared to consider my explanation of the implications of "everything is subjective", nor even acknowledge the truth of what I said.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, many people want to hear more complex songwriting. And many of the same songwriters do both. Lieber and Stoller, for example, wrote simple Blues songs like "Kansas City" as well as more nuanced songs like "Is That All There Is".
> 
> But my problem with this premise is that it assume there is no need for the simple songs, the songs which are dance songs, joyously infectious but trivial ditties.
> 
> There is a place for all of it, and it all serves a purpose in our lives.


I don't necessarily have anything against simple songs. I have something against songs that are generic, forgettable, bland and trivial. I don't find new pop songs to be catchy/infectious. They're not good enough to be that.

'Hit the Road Jack' by Ray Charles is a simple song, yet it's not generic and it's extremely catchy and memorable. 
I think it's sad that I should give technical proof to someone that 'Hit the Road Jack' is actually a better song than Post Malone's 'Motley Crew' song. We should only give proof to deaf people.

You don't need to give proof to anyone that a red color that is brighter than other red is actually brighter. Someone who can see is able to see that without me proving that to him. Only people who are color blind or completely blind should ask for proof that there is actually something like 'red color' and especially something like 'different variations' of red.

Also with shapes. Someone could ask me for proof that a sphere isn't the same shape as a square. I would tell him 'see it, touch it and feel it', but he would say that is subjective and that there is no proof that a sphere and square have different shapes.

Imagine that some person asks you for proof that a red color is really different from blue color. You would think that something is wrong with him/her.

That's how I feel about people who ask me for proof that garbage like 'Motley Crew' is worse than 'Hit the Road Jack'. The real question they should be asked. The question is 'are you deaf?'


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> Why is that if everything is subjective?
> 
> Because sometimes, people's subjective opinions coincide.
> 
> ...


In my country many people didn't like Elton John simply because of his image and because he is gay and those people didn't even know what his music actually sounds like and were surprised how good his songs are when they finally heard them. Pop music is more about image than music and that is what sells. That's even more meaningful considering that Elton was never 'pretty' or 'cool enough' or 'sexy enough' to be a pop star or rock star, but people actually liked his music. Yes, everyone has a right not to like his music. I would expect that someone who is adjusted to modern pop charts or something like nu-metal, hip-hop etc. wouldn't like Elton at all. But who knows... 
Also, not all people are capable of understanding music. I don't expect a chicken or elephant to be able to hear the difference in quality between Beethoven and Nicki Minaj. I also don't expect that from people who are adjusted to derivative modern pop-rap crap.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *nikola:* "You don't need to give proof to anyone that a red color that is brighter than other red is actually brighter. Someone who can see is able to see that without me proving that to him. Only people who are color blind or completely blind should ask for proof that there is actually something like 'red color' and especially something like 'different variations' of red.
> 
> Also with shapes. Someone could ask me for proof that a sphere isn't the same shape as a square. I would tell him 'see it, touch it and feel it', but he would say that is subjective and that there is no proof that a sphere and square have different shapes.
> 
> ...


Sorry to rake through this quagmire again, but the above post clearly (and accurately) discusses measurable, tangible, quantifiable attributes/parameters such as shape, color, etc. Where it goes into the ditch is not whether these things can be quantified bu whether they can be good or bad. Is a cube better than a sphere? Bright red better than either blue or a paier red? They can be better _if you think they are better._ It is really that simple.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Originally Posted by pianozach View Post said:


> You are deliberately ignoring what I said. I NEVER said it's ALL "subjective".
> 
> I said that the objective components tell only HALF the story.
> 
> ...





nikola said:


> That's not what I was asking YOU. I wrote something else considering classical music etc. It's obvious that after a few hundred years people find some classical pieces more interesting to listen to than other pieces. *Why is that if everything is subjective?* It's obviously isn't subjective then.
> The analogy of orange and apple only works if you compare pop music to folk music, not if you compare two pop songs.


OMFG. Sweet Wounded Buddha. Are you deaf? I AM NOT SAYING *everything is subjective*.

You seem to be arguing against a stance that no one is taking.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *nikola:* "Also, not all people are capable of understanding music. I don't expect a chicken or elephant to be able to hear the difference in quality between Beethoven and Nicki Minaj. I also don't expect that from people who are adjusted to derivative modern pop-rap crap."


Only the deaf or those with a brain lesion are incapable of "understanding" music. I happen, like you, to prefer Beethoven to Minaj, so we form a consensus group of two people and we, I hope, consider our tastes worthy, autonomous, and valid. Just as someone who prefers Minaj is part of a consensus whose tastes are worthy, autonomous, and valid. It is a matter of opinion, always, in matters of art/music.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> OMFG. Sweet Wounded Buddha. Are you deaf? I AM NOT SAYING *everything is subjective*.
> 
> You seem to be arguing against a stance that no one is taking.


So, something is objective. Which part? The 'science' part? What part is science in music? Maybe the art part is the science part? It's all confusing.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Taste is subjective, quality is not. That millions of tweens enjoy Justin beaver's latest chart-topper doesn't make it an artistic success or, conversely, a failure. The song in question would have to be evaluated and weighed against established criteria.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> I agree with myself that my judgment considering the quality of music is objective.


It isn't objective. What I have seen you do is appeal to the authority of people like Rick Beato, who while he does explain his objections citing specific musical aspects that are missing or under-developed, he is using his priorities which are subjective as the standard for what is desirable and good.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Only the deaf or those with a brain lesion are incapable of "understanding" music. I happen, like you, to prefer Beethoven to Minaj, so we form a consensus group of two people and we, I hope, consider our tastes worthy, autonomous, and valid. Just as someone who prefers Minaj is part of a consensus whose tastes are worthy, autonomous, and valid. It is a matter of opinion, always, in matters of art/music.


Nicki Minaj is immature music for immature people. To say that Nicki is better than Beethoven is actually like saying that 4 year old child scribbles on paper are equally good as paintings by Van Gogh. That child doesn't have a brain that's developed enough to see and understand that its drawing has its limits comparing it to Van Gogh. Some 13 year old girl can believe that Nicki Minaj is better than Beethoven and some dogs can also believe that when their owner says 'good boy' is also better music than Beethoven. That doesn't mean that is true. It means that the listener has certain limitations.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> It isn't objective. What I have seen you do is appeal to the authority of people like Rick Beato, who while he does explain his objections citing specific musical aspects that are missing or under-developed, he is using his priorities which are subjective as the standard for what is desirable and good.


Rick is an old story. We're talking about other things now.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

A bit of pop harmony also died with Oasis, i really like their music.

part of it is revived with Noel Gallagher´s High Flying Birds, but it just ain´t the same.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> Taste is subjective, quality is not. That millions of tweens enjoy Justin beaver's latest chart-topper doesn't make it an artistic success or, conversely, a failure. The song in question would have to be evaluated and weighed against established criteria.


Pop music is primarily about appealing to a mass audience and prioritizes infectious beats, and hooks, and dance tempos. These attributes may not be indicative of quality to you, someone who primarily listens to Classical music, but these are precisely the attributes which appeal to a large segment of young people.

Otherwise Justin Beiber would not be as popular or he would be recording different songs.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

pianozach said:


> OMFG. Sweet Wounded Buddha. Are you deaf? I AM NOT SAYING *everything is subjective*.
> 
> You seem to be arguing against a stance that no one is taking.


I would be cautious here to avoid misunderstanding. It is an objective fact that more people like the music of Beethoven over that of Babbitt (or of Dittersdorf). But whether Beethoven's music is good or better than someone else's music is a subjective opinion only. The music is just there in the void, like a fish in an infinite sea. We bring, individually, to it our own net of good/bad to throw over the fish and drag it forth into our world of personal (sometime shared) judgement.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> Rick is an old story. We're talking about other things now.


Oh, okay. This your way of avoiding the issue of how your opinion is not objective.



nikola said:


> Nicki Minaj is immature music for immature people. To say that Nicki is better than Beethoven is actually like saying that 4 year old child scribbles on paper are equally good as paintings by Van Gogh. That child doesn't have a brain that's developed enough to see and understand that its drawing has its limits comparing it to Van Gogh. Some 13 year old girl can believe that Nicki Minaj is better than Beethoven and some dogs can also believe that when their owner says 'good boy' is also better music than Beethoven. That doesn't mean that is true. It means that the listener has certain limitations.


And now you are claiming that someone said that Nicki Minaj is better than Beethoven. I must have missed that post.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Oh, okay. This your way of avoiding the issue of how your opinion is not objective.
> 
> And now you are claiming that someone said that Nicki Minaj is better than Beethoven. I must have missed that post.


I don't claim that.
You seem annoyed. Take a deep breath


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> Nicki Minaj is immature music for immature people. To say that Nicki is better than Beethoven is actually like saying that 4 year old child scribbles on paper are equally good as paintings by Van Gogh. That child doesn't have a brain that's developed enough to see and understand that its drawing has its limits comparing it to Van Gogh. Some 13 year old girl can believe that Nicki Minaj is better than Beethoven and some dogs can also believe that when their owner says 'good boy' is also better music than Beethoven. That doesn't mean that is true. It means that the listener has certain limitations.


This mirrors J. Robert Oppenheimer's letter to his brother in which he tells him that the best music is that preferred by the best people. The point always is that every person is entitled to their opinions in matters of art, and that their opinions are valid, authentic, autonomous, sincere. You may not share their opinions in art or music but you cannot dismiss their preferences on "objective" criteria as good or bad--the only objective criteria that art or music have are length, complexity, creator, color (if useful), shape, weight, date of creation, odor, size, sales figures, or polling data ( and all other such quantifiable variables).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> I would be cautious here to avoid misunderstanding. It is an objective fact that more people like the music of Beethoven over that of Babbitt (or of Dittersdorf). But whether Beethoven's music is good or better than someone else's music is a subjective opinion only. The music is just there in the void, like a fish in an infinite sea. We bring, individually, to it our own net of good/bad to throw over the fish and drag it forth into our world of personal (sometime shared) judgement.


It is pointless to compare Beethoven to Babbitt, the styles are so different there is little basis for actual comparison. The only meaningful way to judge Beethoven's or Babbitt's music is to analyze whether each composer achieved what it appears to have been his intended goal with the composition: how he exploited his materials and thematic development within a work.

In that scenario one can say that both Babbitt and Beethoven both achieved their respective goals. Where the subjectivity comes into play is whether one listener values Beethoven's style and priorities more than those of Babbitt.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> I don't claim that.


You used that comparison in your post.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> It is pointless to compare Beethoven to Babbitt, the styles are so different there is little basis for actual comparison. The only meaningful way to judge Beethoven's or Babbitt's music is to analyze whether each composer achieved what it appears to have been his intended goal with the composition: how he exploited his materials and thematic development within a work.
> 
> In that scenario one can say that both Babbitt and Beethoven both achieved their respective goals. Where the subjectivity comes into play is whether one listener values Beethoven's style and priorities more than those of Babbitt.


Who knows whether any artist achieves his/her goals? And that is immaterial anyway for the viewer/auditor--the question is whether I like it or not--the piece, the art may be deeply flawed (says who?) but if I like it, that is all that counts. My esthetics enfolds and validates the autonomous right of every individual to like and dislike what they will without guilt or shame.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> This mirrors J. Robert Oppenheimer's letter to his brother in which he tells him that the best music is that preferred by the best people. The point always is that every person is entitled to their opinions in matters of art, and that their opinions are valid, authentic, autonomous, sincere. You may not share their opinions in art or music but you cannot dismiss their preferences on "objective" criteria as good or bad--the only objective criteria that art or music have are length, complexity, creator, color (if useful), shape, weight, date of creation, odor, size, sales figures, or polling data ( and all other such quantifiable variables).


I didn't say that people aren't entitled to their opinion, but there are many levels of 'maturity' even in art. Some people are listening to music that is talking about their primal needs or their shallow views on life. They listen to it because it will make them seem cool. They listen to it because such music talks about money, being rich, sex, parties, etc. I'm not saying that such music can't be good either, but music that's meant to REPRESENT something that is actually LOW on the scale of maturity mostly can't be good as music that is more mature. Music for teens today isn't even important. It is most important to share some message that herds of immature young people are interested in. When all young people listen to the same genre that is mostly 'violent' in its expression it's because of what such music represents and music is not that important here. There are also different levels of human consciousness. There are probably no better or worse people, but there are people who simply can't comprehend 'Adagietto' by Mahler. We don't know if they're even able to comprehend music that they like or pretend to like because it's 'cool to listen to that'. Some people when they grow up can't believe what they were listening to when they were kids and consider such music now to be crap. There are also different mindsets of people and not all people will be mature enough to understand why Beethoven's best work is better than best work by Nicki Minaj.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Who knows whether any artist achieves his/her goals? And that is immaterial anyway for the viewer/auditor--the question is whether I like it or not--the piece, the art may be deeply flawed (says who?) but if I like it, that is all that counts. My esthetics enfolds and validates the autonomous right of every individual to like and dislike what they will without guilt or shame.


Yes, but that is a different issue than trying to come to some understanding on the intrinsic value of a musical work. A talented musicologist or theorist has the training and tools at hand to analyze a musical composition and make a case for what is occurring in the work.

This is different than simply listening to it and responding positively or negatively to the music. Of course most of us do just that, and our only concern is if we like something or not, and that is a 100% subjective experience. However, when a scholar who has made a career in 18th century music analyzes a work they are using criteria and knowledge beyond that kind of purely subjective response and can make a case that Beethoven was a better composer than Dittersdorf.

The fan of Dittersdorf may not agree, but his subjective response will not trump the scholar's analysis - but it doesn't matter in the long run.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^nikola, it is clear to me that you cannot and will not be moved (nor I) from your view. You are absolutely committed to the position that you are a better judge of other people's choices and preferences in esthetics for themselves than they are, presumably on the basis that the obviously objective, quantifiable data about an artwork somehow can be assigned good or bad status. You thus are happy to strip from others their belief in the validity, the integrity, of their own choices, goals, desires. My esthetics are all about Uhuru! Freedom! to be secure in the authenticity and value of one's one judgement, needs, joys. Again I ask: which is the best ice cream?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> However, when a scholar who has made a career in 18th century music analyzes a work they are using criteria and knowledge beyond that kind of purely subjective response and can make a case that Beethoven was a better composer than Dittersdorf.


Music theory is just theory. The scholar's description of his own response to the theoretical elements is also subjective. Don't get me started on the fallacies of Charles Rosen's The Classical Style, for example.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^nikola, it is clear to me that you cannot and will not be moved (nor I) from your view. You are absolutely committed to the position that you are a better judge of other people's choices and preferences in esthetics for themselves than they are, presumably on the basis that the obviously objective, quantifiable data about an artwork somehow can be assigned good or bad status. You thus are happy to strip from others their belief in the validity, the integrity, of their own choices, goals, desires. My esthetics are all about Uhuru! Freedom! to be secure in the authenticity and value of one's one judgement, needs, joys. Again I ask: which is the best ice cream?


The best eye scream is chocolate eyes scream, but I prefer lemon eye scream too because it's refreshing.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *SanAntone:*"The fan of Dittersdorf may not agree, but his subjective response will not trump the scholar's analysis - but it doesn't matter in the long run.


In the real world of you and I listening to music or examining artwork or reading books, etc., you know that our own personal preferences trump everything else.:angel:


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Like moths to a flame, the attraction is irresistible, but fatal, at least to one's sanity.

When a poster is either unwilling or incapable of following or propounding a logical argument, it's a waste of time trying to set one out yourself. Even the simplest statement seems to fox some people. It's difficult not believing that there is both deliberate obfuscation and provocation at work here.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> In the real world of you and I listening to music or examining artwork or reading books, etc., you know that our own personal preferences trump everything else.:angel:


The awkward leap for some objectivists to make is to understand that its possible for a subjectivist to hold simultaneously that all qualitative judgements are subjective, no matter how well informed, and that yes, Beethoven is a great composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

nikola said:


> There are also different mindsets of people and not all people will be mature enough to understand why Beethoven's best work is better than best work by Nicki Minaj.


Or they may just have "different functions". Here's an example of works considered to be greatest in classical music. If someone says they would rather listen to pop, for the reasons listed in the article, is he being immature?: https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Pop music is primarily about appealing to a mass audience and prioritizes infectious beats, and hooks, and dance tempos. These attributes may not be indicative of quality to you, someone who primarily listens to Classical music, but these are precisely the attributes which appeal to a large segment of young people.
> 
> Otherwise Justin Beiber would not be as popular or he would be recording different songs.


Michael Jackson was popular as sin at one point and he produced some excellent pop music that continues to be enjoyed by the masses to this day. My point is that pop can rise to level of fine art and also appeal to many-it doesn't have to be $h!t (though plenty is). Good music generally stands the test of time, inept music does not, regardless of its popularity in its heyday.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Michael Jackson was popular as sin at one point and he produced some excellent pop music that appealed to the masses. My point is that pop can rise to level of fine art and also appeal to many-it doesn't have to be $h!t (though plenty is).


Of course it doesn't. That's not in dispute. What is disputed is who is to say what is and isn't sh-- or art?!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> *Taste is subjective, quality is not*. That millions of tweens enjoy Justin beaver's latest chart-topper doesn't make it an artistic success or, conversely, a failure. The song in question would have to be evaluated and weighed against established criteria.


Not so.

And whose established criteria?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> Michael Jackson was popular as sin at one point and he produced some excellent pop music that continues to be enjoyed by the masses to this day. My point is that pop can rise to level of fine art and also appeal to many; it doesn't have to be $h!t (though plenty is).


I completely agree, and Pop has always been a mixture of songs which rose to the level of art and those that didn't, although it was all popular. Artistic quality is a very subjective judgment anyway. For some listeners Michael Jackson did not make art Pop, but commercial dance music. For those listeners maybe Steely Dan was preferable.

I don't even think in those terms. What I try to do is come to some understanding of the craft that is at work in a song. And there can be solid craft in making a song that sounds simplistic. One of the hardest things to do is create something that sounds simple but is very pleasing and not trite.



> Good music generally stands the test of time, inept music does not-regardless of its popularity in its heyday.


I also strongly agree with this. But we don't really know how long the music of Michael Jackson will survive. It is still very popular, but much less popular than Drake right now. Most of the very popular acts from the 1980s like Public Enemy and Run-D.M.C. have not retained anything like the popularity as Michael Jackson or Bruce Springsteen.

Styles change relatively rapidly because the Pop audience also changes, and the market responds to trends and demographics.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Forster said:


> Not so.
> 
> And whose established criteria?


Scores of artists; authors, songwriters, composers, sculptors, architects, etc.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> In the real world of you and I listening to music or examining artwork or reading books, etc., you know that our own personal preferences trump everything else.:angel:


For ourselves, but not in the context of the history of music which is studied by scholars, and some laymen.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> Like moths to a flame, the attraction is irresistible, but fatal, at least to one's sanity.
> 
> When a poster is either unwilling or incapable of following or propounding a logical argument, it's a waste of time trying to set one out yourself. Even the simplest statement seems to fox some people. It's difficult not believing that there is both deliberate obfuscation and provocation at work here.


When someone doesn't like logical arguments, then the problem must be in the person who gives you logical statements and arguments. Why? Because you believe you must be right, but you don't know how to verbalize that. I'm really sorry.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Scores of artists; authors, songwriters, composers, sculptors, architects, etc.


All entitled to their well-informed opinions - but still their own, not objective criteria, even if shared with others. Note how informed opinions had to change when "Modern Art" challenged the orthodoxies of centuries.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

OK. Shall we try one point at a time?

So, you said...



nikola said:


> People who think all music is equally good don't need to say 'this is good' or 'this is bad'.[...]It seems that there are still criteria, right?


To which I replied...



Forster said:


> Nobody thinks all music is equally good.
> 
> And as for criteria, of course there are criteria. We even agree what some of them are - good melody, for example.
> 
> It's the application of the criteria, which criteria should apply, and where the authority for these criteria comes from that is subjective.


Do you accept my first point? That nobody thinks "all music is equally good"? This is a false conclusion derived from your misunderstanding of how subjectivity works, which is why you then asked...



nikola said:


> How if it's all subjective?


To which I replied...



Forster said:


> If it's "all subjective", you have to ask each individual what they think.


In other words, you'd have to ask each subjectivist separately what their opinion is on any given piece of music. Do you agree?

I then said



Forster said:


> Ask me. I'd say that there is music that I rate highly and music that I don't bother rating at all. Look at the top ten I reviewed a few pages back. I made clear that some songs were "better" than others - you even commented on my ratings.


Do you concede that I, a subjectivist, can still offer ratings - my subjective ratings, granted, but ratings nevertheless? And you acknowledge that you responded to those ratings - even though your response was to say that my scoring was too high?

So, I then added...



Forster said:


> But I also made clear that my ratings were based on each song relative to the others - not based on any criteria other than my own.


Can you accept that both of us posted ratings, with criteria and that while we might argue about the numerical values we gave to each of the songs, our processes for ratings were equally valid?

So, I repeat what I said earlier: It's the application of the criteria, which criteria should apply, and where the authority for these criteria comes from that is subjective.

Can you see my point?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> For ourselves, but not in the context of the history of music which is studied by scholars, and some laymen.





Red Terror said:


> Scores of artists; authors, songwriters, composers, sculptors, architects, etc.


If they were "indoctrinated" or "brainwashed" under the education A is objectively great and B is not, would they be authorities to be relied on unquestioningly?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> If they were "indoctrinated" or "brainwashed" under the education A is objectively great and B is not, would they be authorities to be relied on unquestioningly?


It is quite an assumption that the only reason Beethoven has been considered great both by his contemporaries and future generations of scholars is because they are all brainwashed or indoctrinated.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> It is quite an assumption that the only reason Beethoven has been considered great both by his contemporaries and future generations of scholars is because they are all brainwashed or indoctrinated.


The greatness of great art comes from the results of a polling process, not from any intrinsic Platonic Greatness in the art itself. Art is just there. We can point to differences in the measurable qualities and quantities of artworks but goodness or badness is not such an intrinsic quality.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> It is quite an assumption that the only reason Beethoven has been considered great both by his contemporaries and future generations of scholars is because they are all brainwashed or indoctrinated.


You seem to keep misunderstanding me or trying to avoid addressing the real point of my question. Of course some things are more popular than others. But the question of whether or not they're popular because they have depth or they're superficially pleasing or sentimental or over-the-top belongs in the realm of subjectivity. Scholars are also fans of certain music themselves, it's the reason why they do research on certain music in the first place. Attributing greatness is just a way for fans to frame something they like and want to glorify. The fact that scholars have theoretical or historical knowledge of the stuff proves nothing as far as pure musical value of works is concerned. And may I remind you that just months ago, you answered with the following,


SanAntone said:


> All judgments about music, art, are subjective. Any time we express an opinion about a work, positive or negative, it is a keyhole into our personalities and aesthetic taste - but offers no information concerning the music itself.


to my thread, "I didn't see the merits of X's music until I had N hours of listening to it"


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Forster said:


> That's not in dispute. What is disputed is who is to say what is and isn't sh-...art?!


Farts is greater than art. Without farts we might all explode.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> The greatness of great art comes from the results of a polling process, not from any intrinsic Platonic Greatness in the art itself. Art is just there. We can point to differences in the measurable qualities and quantities of artworks but goodness or badness is not such an intrinsic quality.


I don't believe that.

Beethoven was a very gifted composer and invested his music with a profundity that few other composers have done. It isn't a matter of polling. Beethoven's genius was recognized by his contemporaries. And successive music scholars have written scores of books analyzing Beethoven's music and documented his mastery of composition. These are not trivial facts, they are the backbone of a consensus judgment of a great achievement.



> Of course some things are more popular than others. But whether or not they're popular because they have depth or they're superficially pleasing or sentimental or over-the-top belongs in the realm of subjectivity. Scholars are also fans of certain music themselves, it's the reason why they do research on certain music in the first place.


See the above.



> All judgments about music, art, are subjective. Any time we express an opinion about a work, positive or negative, it is a keyhole into our personalities and aesthetic taste - but offers no information concerning the music itself.


This is one comment I've posted here. I also posted others to put it into a larger context. It is my belief that while all judgements about music are rooted in subjectivity, when these subjective judgments consistently and over a long period time reflect the same response, then they are the closer to an objective judgment.

For the rest of us, expressing our individual responses to composers and works, these are absolutely subjective (although trained musicians, composers, and scholars can include informed insights to buttress their opinion).


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

It seems to me that the vast majority of mainstream pop music of the last twenty years sounds the same.

Some think that is bad.

Others do not.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Beethoven's genius was recognized by his contemporaries.


I don't mean to discredit Beethoven, I believe Weber and Spohr had reservations about his music. Hummel laughed when Beethoven failed to satisfy the Esterhazy prince with Mass Op.86, (although this may have been due to the professional rivalry between the two composers).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't mean to discredit Beethoven, I believe Weber and Spohr had reservations about his music. Hummel laughed when Beethoven failed to satisfy the Esterhazy prince with Mass Op.86, (while this may have been due to the professional rivalry between the two composers).


At the time of the commissioning of the Diabelli variations Beethoven was recognized as among the greatest of composers. And the fact that his 33 variations were accepted and published distinct from the collection of single variations by the other 50 or so composers shows that he was treated differently than the others. Just the fact alone that Beethoven presumed to write 33 variations (which were gratefully accepted) while the others adhered to the commission by only sending one offers an insight to how Beethoven saw himself and how others saw him during his lifetime.

There will always be the bad review here and there, or composer who makes a negative comment. But I think the history is well documented that during his lifetime Beethoven was considered the greatest living composer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> *I don't believe that.*
> 
> Beethoven was a very gifted composer and invested his music with a profundity that few other composers have done. It isn't a matter of polling. Beethoven's genius was recognized by his contemporaries. And successive music scholars have written scores of books analyzing Beethoven's music and documented his mastery of composition. These are not trivial facts, they are the backbone of a consensus judgment of a great achievement.


Clearly you do not believe that. But if you examine your very own post, you can see the inescapable subjectivity saturating your remarks--the profundity of Beethoven, if a synonym or stand-in for complexity or any other set of quantifiable parameters, can be measured (how, i'll leave to the musicologists). Also many other measurables. But the "profundity" is still in the mind and ear of the individual perceiver. If many also ascribe "profundity" to a particular work, we have a voting process and profundity is established by a show of hands--of his contemporaries (some) and the myriad music scholars analyzing his music--it suits them. I agree that they are not trivial facts and they are verifiable also; lots of people like Beethoven's music. But this is a consensus of like-minded souls who, like the Bandar-log of Kipling's _Mowgli_ stories, say "We all say so, so it must be true." It does not establish that any music or art is intrinsically, inherently good (or bad). The inhabitants of the planet Thraa, when presented with Beethoven's music, scream in horror and plug their ears.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> It isn't a matter of polling. Beethoven's genius was recognized by his contemporaries. And successive music scholars have written scores of books analyzing Beethoven's music and documented his mastery of composition.


In other words, you poll others on Beethoven who got successful/famous/published because even more polled individuals liked _them_.

In any case, I'm reminded of the concept the 'inner circle.' There may have been numerous inner circles, who each had their own school and elite opinion on composition, and who each regarded different composers with more respect than others. There are the more famous (ie. _polled_) schools, like the Bach circle who certainly favored Buxtehude. But then there are lots of unpopular, elitist circles, who I can't imagine are remembered and recorded well by us, the catalog, the currency, the consumer.

In some ways, I think popular Classical and popular Jazz are deeper, elitist extensions of pop music, and then more obscure schools are deeper extensions of these. What are your thoughts on that?



Strange Magic said:


> The inhabitants of the planet Thraa, when presented with Beethoven's music, scream in horror and plug their ears.


Not the inhabitants of Thraa yet, but perhaps they will join together and move there one day.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I think the history is well documented that during his lifetime Beethoven was considered the greatest living composer.


In other words, you support the "tyranny of the majority". (This doesn't just apply to Beethoven, but also Bach, Mozart)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Why not compare the revenue the music of John Cage makes in comparison to the one the music of John Williams makes? Whether or not they're "great" really depends on how you subjectively interpret the facts.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Why not compare the revenue the music of John Cage makes in comparison to the one the music of John Williams makes? Whether or not they're "great" really depends on how you subjectively interpret the facts.


The main reason why that is an inappropriate method to gauge the importance of any Classical composer is that Classical composers have a different goal than Pop songwriters and producers. The primary goal of Pop creators is to produce something that will appeal to a mass audience, to be popular for the current market. Whereas the goal of a Classical composer is to create something of a more lasting quality.

This is not to say that some Pop creators do not also have artistic concerns, but to the extent they prioritize those above wishing to maximize the songs's appeal to the mass audience, their song could be marginalized. Both Pop songwriting and Classical composing require a high degree of skill and craft, but the motivation of the creator is different in exercising those disciplines.

And I have repeatedly said that I don't see any rationale to compare Composer A to Composer B whose styles are very different. Instead I look at what each composer has done in a work and try to gauge if they appear to have handled their materials in an economic and creative manner.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I don't believe that.
> 
> Beethoven was a very gifted composer and invested his music with a profundity that few other composers have done. It isn't a matter of polling. Beethoven's genius was recognized by his contemporaries. And successive music scholars have written scores of books analyzing Beethoven's music and documented his mastery of composition. These are not trivial facts, they are the backbone of a consensus judgment of a great achievement.


The case for Beethoven is a strong one, no-one would deny that. However, a consensus is also an orthodoxy. As has been asserted by others, that orthodoxy evolves in a context of like-minded musical individuals who all approve of that which confirms their tastes.
It's difficult to argue against the opinions of the classical musical establishment crafted over 300 years.

Nevertheless, as we all know, now-accepted heresies have done just that. What would Beethoven's patrons made of _Rite of Spring_, I wonder. Or _Verklarte Nacht._


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> OK. Shall we try one point at a time?
> 
> So, you said...
> 
> ...


No, I don't see your point. 
I only see that you're taking things way too seriously. 
It's like "quality isn't subjective, but when we are rating music, that is subjective". Is that your point?
But if there's no one there objective to rate it, the quality of music also can't be objective.
I don't agree with that.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

No, it wasn't my point. Whatever your post means, I'm not getting it.

Well, I tried, and failed miserably. I think I'm done.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> But if there's no one there objective to rate it, the quality of music also can't be objective.
> I don't agree with that.


I gather that your position is that 'quality", goodness, greatness, etc. is an inherent, intrinsic property of artwork, irrespective of any perceiver or whether it is perceived or not. If the only perceivers are the inhabitants of the planet Thraa, and they scream and cover their ears (or eyes, or whatever organs of perception) at the presence of such artwork, it is still intrinsically good, floating in Platonic space, Ideal space, like a glowing ball of wonder. That may be a great comfort to you to know that you have chosen to like the artwork that you do, and I leave you free to be so comforted. I like artworks because I like them, for various psychological, neurochemical, idiosyncratic reasons that are partly conscious and partly hard-wired in. But the goodness, the greatness of what I like are properties that I bring to the artwork, and are not contained within the artwork itself. _de gustibus..._, etc.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> I gather that your position is that 'quality", goodness, greatness, etc. is an inherent, intrinsic property of artwork, irrespective of any perceiver or whether it is perceived or not. If the only perceivers are the inhabitants of the planet Thraa, and they scream and cover their ears (or eyes, or whatever organs of perception) at the presence of such artwork, it is still intrinsically good, floating in Platonic space, Ideal space, like a glowing ball of wonder. That may be a great comfort to you to know that you have chosen to like the artwork that you do, and I leave you free to be so comforted. I like artworks because I like them, for various psychological, neurochemical, idiosyncratic reasons that are partly conscious and partly hard-wired in. But the goodness, the greatness of what I like are properties that I bring to the artwork, and are not contained within the artwork itself. _de gustibus..._, etc.


Music from humans is made for humans, so it obviously doesn't float in space. Music is the language of mankind.

While listening to Billboard top 40 today, it's like listening to small talk: "Beautiful day, isn't it?", "It looks like it's going to snow."
That's not what music is about. Mature people don't need that. Immature people can't recognize meaninglessness in such music just like they're not able to recognize their own meaningless and shallow views on life.

Of all art music may be the most abstract and it can send different messages to listeners - those messages can be simple or complicated, basic or spiritual, but the fact is that the purpose of music is primarily to evoke some emotions in the listener. Beethoven said: "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents."

To crap on that music with deliberately bad music only to make money or to evoke the most shallow feelings in humans is not ok to me.

I remember when I was younger I heard music that made me happy simply because of playful and original melodies/harmonies/rhythms etc. Sometimes I heard music that made me feel a completely new level of emotions that felt 'so right', yet so different and new. It was almost like discovering a new dimension in life. That's what real artists are able to do. That's what music is about. Music isn't 'air'. It exists. It is more real and more important than a chair we sit on.

Just like I said in previous posts, it's ok for music to be mediocre or even bad sometimes, but it's NOT OK for almost the whole of humanity to accept from musical moguls attempts to brainwash young people with horrific, homogenized, sterile, synthetic and repetitive 3 chords for over 20 years just because 'it's easy'.

Music as ART is something that should be protected and that should develop. It's happening quite the opposite. By saying 'all music is equally good, it's all subjective', we're actually helping that good music become forgotten. With such an approach we're encouraging more and more people without any real talent to continue to make worse and worse music for profit until really good music becomes forgotten. For now it has been happening for over 20 years. In these 20 years music hasn't changed ALMOST a bit on the charts and that is an obvious sign that something is wrong.

Compare music on the charts in 1962 and 1982 and you'll hear how drastically it changed. After that, compare music on charts in 2002 and 2022. 
Pop music was always evolving. That doesn't happen anymore.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I think the mindset "classical music has greater complexity than a popsong that uses 4 chords, therefore classical music is generally more valuable as art" pervades the minds of many people (including some people in this thread). But keep in mind that AI imitates classical music composition these days. Wait till it becomes more advanced: 








And the difference between classical music and non-classical music has not even been properly defined.



SanAntone said:


> I don't see any rationale to compare Composer A to Composer B whose styles are very different.


It's also reasonable to suggest there's no such thing as "objective greatness", on the basis that (well-put by Ethereality in another thread):


Ethereality said:


> How does "experientially wired to perceive them as great" not account for everything we're talking about. Anyway, I don't see a point with your response. Karayev, Wolf, Holst, Weinberg, or Beethoven are all great, it just depends on who you ask. Popularity only tells you how most people are wired or conditioned. It can't tell you about quality. Quality itself is a subjective word.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> these subjective judgments consistently and over a long period time reflect the same response, then they are the closer to an objective judgment.


Religions need leaders, nations need heroes, drama shows and movies need main characters, and industries and franchises need flagship model "brands", "faces" that represent them. MacDonalds have their BigMac and Burger King have their Whopper.
The fact that there's hero-making even in the classical music industry doesn't make the "heroes" themselves _intrinsically_ superior to the "non-heroes". It's like saying BigMac objectively and absolutely tastes better than other burgers sold at MacDonalds, when in fact it was a "face" that have been promoted due to various circumstances and needs within the industry.

Ask an opera-goer in the 18th century Europe where the Enlightenment ideals were upheld unquestioningly; which of the two operas, Una cosa rara (1786) and Le Nozze di Figaro (1786), was more exemplary within the tradition of Italian opera.
The fact that people's tastes changed over time so that they would find Figaro more appealing doesn't make it suddenly intrinsically superior somehow. We can indulge in the wishful thinking, "poor Mozart was undervalued in his time" all we want. It's all simply "evaluating history based on what happened later" -Not an objective way to look at the historical event independently.
"Cream buns have become appealing to people than plain buns", "2 operas of different styles" are also valid, subjective ways to look at the case.

What if there was a composer, X (in the 18th century Classical period, even more obscure today than Boccherini and Gluck), who was writing in a similar idiom as Mozart, but has long been forgotten through history since he had refused to publish his music? Maybe scholars today can promote his music in popularity by pointing out the possible expressive similarities X's music has with Mozart's, but nothing that scholars do about X's music, can change X's "objective/absolute greatness" with respect to Mozart's, Boccherini's, or Gluck's. The notes and staves (that tell us what abstract sounds to make) have been there on paper, unchanged over 250 years, and will forever remain as they have been. If the greatness "changes" over time and by perception, how can it be "intrinsic/absolute"? Think of Newton's theories of absolute space and time vs. Einstein's relativity.
Also, "Strawberries taste more like raspberries than bananas" may be close to being an objective statement, but "strawberries taste better than bananas" is not an objective statement. The popularity of strawberries has with respect to that of bananas proves in the general public today proves nothing as far as objective values of those fruits are concerned.

Classical music appreciation is a niche interest in the world today. Aside from maybe very few selected "hits" such as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, the general public (99.99% of people in the world today) simply doesn't give a damn. They simply don't care that much about all those "outdated ancient relics that should belong in a museum" glorified as "classical music". Ask anyone in the street if they know and can hum the 2rd movement of Beethoven's 11th string quartet or the 1st movement of his 18th piano sonata. They might just reply, "Oh.. What a nerd.."

This are the "truths" about artists or music that have been said to have "withstood the test of time".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It really doesn't matter if you, *hammeredklavier*, agree that Beethoven was a great composer, or think that he is considered great because of reasons outside of how he wrote his music. The fact is that today, and for some time, he has been included in the list of great composers.

I am not here to argue the validity of that judgment, I accept it as one of the truisms of Classical music. And it doesn't even matter to me which composers are considered great. As I've said before most of my favorite composers are not on that list.

So, I am a bit confused why you continue to quote my posts and write these longish replies pointing out what you see as the problems with this greatness idea.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> It really doesn't matter if you, *hammeredklavier*, agree that Beethoven was a great composer, or think that he is considered great because of reasons outside of how he wrote his music. The fact is that today, and for some time, he has been included in the list of great composers.
> 
> I am not here to argue the validity of that judgment, I accept it as one of the truisms of Classical music. And it doesn't even matter to me which composers are considered great. As I've said before most of my favorite composers are not on that list.
> 
> So, I am a bit confused why you continue to quote my posts and write these longish replies pointing out what you see as the problems with this greatness idea.


Simple solution: just say *In My Opinion* Beethoven's _Eroica_ is a great symphony--even better tham all his others and better than anything by Lady Gaga." instead of "Beethoven's _Eroica_ is a great symphony--even better than all his others and better than anything by Lady Gaga".


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Simple solution: just say *In My Opinion* Beethoven's _Eroica_ is a great symphony--even better all his others and better than anything by Lady Gaga." instead of "Beethoven's _Eroica_ is a great symphony--even better than all his others and better than anything by Lady Gaga".


Why 3rd? I like some other symphonies more. Maybe 3rd represents the transition from classical to romantic period, but I prefer later symphonies.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Simple solution: just say *In My Opinion* Beethoven's _Eroica_ is a great symphony--even better all his others and better than anything by Lady Gaga." instead of "Beethoven's _Eroica_ is a great symphony--even better than all his others and better than anything by Lady Gaga".


Actually, that is your option, since for the last 250 years it has been a settled issue that Beethoven is a great composer. So, if you don't wish to identify with that judgment of history, then you can say "In my opinion ..."

What I say is, "Sure, yes, he is considered a great composer, but it doesn't matter to me."


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> Music from humans is made for humans, so it obviously doesn't float in space. Music is the language of mankind.
> 
> While listening to Billboard top 40 today, it's like listening to small talk: "Beautiful day, isn't it?", "It looks like it's going to snow."
> That's not what music is about. Mature people don't need that. Immature people can't recognize meaninglessness in such music just like they're not able to recognize their own meaningless and shallow views on life.
> ...


2 good points, and one bad one.

*musical moguls attempts to brainwash young people with horrific, homogenized, sterile, synthetic and repetitive 3 chords for over 20 years just because 'it's easy'. *

There is great pop music out there, and can be found. But, in general, the public doesn't want more complex music. They don't like it, probably for the same reasons they don't like Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart. "Better" music doesn't "do it" for them. "Musical Moguls" push "homogenized, sterile, and repetitive" music because that's what people want.

*Compare music on the charts in 1962 and 1982 and you'll hear how drastically it changed. After that, compare music on charts in 2002 and 2022. *

Quite right, there was a drastic shift, probably starting in the early 1960s, and reaching full steam 1965-1972.

It's funny, but for all of your touting how much YOUR beloved music from the 1980s is so good, especially when compared to today's music, I could easily parrot your points simply substituting "1980s" for "today's". Music was "crap" (to use one of your words) in the 1980s. MY music was "better", more complex, etc.

*Pop music was always evolving. That doesn't happen anymore.*.

Oh, it damn diddly _DOES_ evolve. You are simply so wrapped up in your own little bubble to acknowledge the evolution, or perhaps you don't even notice it. Music, for centuries, did not evolve in a linear fashion. It went THIS way, then THAT way, maybe evolution in form, or harmony, or instrumentation, or rhythms, or expansion of acceptable pitches.

Pop music may be stalled harmonically, but there are OTHER significant changes. Take Rap for example. That's new. I can't say I like it, but there it is.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> 2 good points, and one bad one.
> 
> *musical moguls attempts to brainwash young people with horrific, homogenized, sterile, synthetic and repetitive 3 chords for over 20 years just because 'it's easy'. *
> 
> ...


.

This is nothing more than a desperate ad hominem disguised as 'conversation'. You're twisting my words and giving them your 'interpretation' suggesting that you know what 'I know' or 'what I don't know' about music or 'what I actually thought' so you could 'discredit me'. It's pathetic. Using ad hominem and straw man in conversation are logical fallacies. Whatever you said here that I said or thought I never said or thought, so I really don't intend to 'defend' something I never actually said. I don't intend to try to destroy your 'mental construction' that you created about me so you could convince yourself that you're right and that i'm not because 'I'm too stupid to see what is really going on' because 'I live in my bubble' and obviously 'I never heard enough music'.
Obviously, you missed out a lot of this conversation.

Rap is new? No, it's not.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Just to say "You go, guys"!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Blondie: _Rapture_ 1980. First rap song to make it big time.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> .
> 
> This is nothing more than a desperate ad hominem disguised as 'conversation'. You're twisting my words and giving them your 'interpretation' suggesting that you know what 'I know' or 'what I don't know' about music or 'what I actually thought' so you could 'discredit me'. It's pathetic. Using ad hominem and straw man in conversation are logical fallacies. Whatever you said here that I said or thought I never said or thought, so I really don't intend to 'defend' something I never actually said. I don't intend to try to destroy your 'mental construction' that you created about me so you could convince yourself that you're right and that i'm not because 'I'm too stupid to see what is really going on' because 'I live in my bubble' and obviously 'I never heard enough music'.
> Obviously, you missed out a lot of this conversation.
> ...


Can't spell "crap" without "rap".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Actually, that is your option, since for the last 250 years it has been a settled issue that Beethoven is a great composer. So, if you don't wish to identify with that judgment of history, then you can say "In my opinion ..."
> 
> What I say is, "Sure, yes, he is considered a great composer, but it doesn't matter to me."


I think this is common ground. i don't choose to necessarily identify with the judgement of history--it can identify with me if I agree with it. And to you it doesn't matter though the "he is considered" part is an objective fact while the "great composer" part is a subjective judgement.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Red Terror said:


> Popular culture in increasingly degenerate-good is bad; black is white; morality is relative. Of course, this has happened before-over and over again for thousands of years and it simply cannot be helped. This cultural degradation is mirrored in most of our art and music.


There's a lot about the past that we cannot know for sure, so I cannot say I completely agree with the idea that pop culture today is _increasingly_ degenerate. For all I know, people were just as degenerate in the past, except it is displayed more publicly in the present because of social media. However, I sympathize with your sentiment. Call me a prude, but I'm uncomfortable with how openly decadent people are these days.



Red Terror said:


> Good art isn't subjective, there are standards. I am not sure why some refuse to acknowledge this fact.


The way I see things, the process of evaluating the quality of art is both objective and subjective. 
It's objective if the evaluator has a specific goal in mind. I can say that the music of Mozart, Beethoven, & Bach is "objectively" good, with this as my standard : "music that _most_ people, _if they put in the time & effort_, can derive great enjoyment from", then their music fits that criteria.

The qualifier that people should put in the time & effort takes into consideration that classical music is not very approachable to most people because of its length & complexity. Also note how it isn't music that _everyone_ can derive great enjoyment from, but _most_. It takes into consideration that some people do not enjoy Mozart no matter what. If I used another standard, like "music that appeals to the most people", then I can't say that Bach's music is 'good', because there are other musicians much more popular than he is right now.

The subjective part comes in when we deal with extremes & superlatives. I cannot say for sure that Beethoven is greater than Mozart. To do that, I need to be more specific with my standards. That's where the subjective part comes in. I don't think there's an objective way to figure out which standard is more important.

Applying this to pop music: if our standard is complexity, then I think it's safe to say that pop music is inferior. But then it raises the question, is complexity the most important standard?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Pianozach tried to misinterpret what I said. I also see here that people are still talking about 'complexity'. I never said that pop songs must be complex to be good. Complex may be 'better', but it's not always better just because it is complex. Anyone can do something complex and it could still suck. First of all, music is art made for experience, not for the sake of complexity. Of course, if you are talented and you compose something more complex to achieve something you wanted to achieve - to fully develop the piece or song to an extent that will help the listener to experience the full spectrum of what you wanted to achieve, then that is a good thing and often it is necessary that most of pop songs aren't too simplistic. 

I never had anything against simple songs. I have something against DERIVATIVE, BLAND AND GENERIC CRAP. When a song uses 3 chords, that doesn't mean the song is bad. The simple fact that a musical piece uses 1 chord, 2 chords or no chords at all doesn't make that piece or any other piece of music 'bad'. What makes a piece bad is lack of creativity and talent. What makes the song bad is that it uses the same 3 chords that are already used by thousands of other songs that sound ALMOST exactly the same and you put a bland and forgettable melody on top of those 3 chords that also sounds like lame melodies from other songs. The thing is, artists SHOULDN'T compose a song that sounds like other 10.000 songs. Trying to be a copycat of everything else (that is the same) doesn't make a 'subjective' listening experience. Such music objectively tries to make a profit and not to bring something of value to you or to me. It is objectively bad. 
That still doesn't mean that you can't create something of quality while making profit.

Are 'Frère Jacques' or Brahms 'Lullaby' or 'Popcorn' by Gershon Kingsley complex songs? No, they're not, but they're also NOT generic, forgettable or bad. And that's the whole meaning of music. You can't 'compose' something generic and tried to convince me that all music is subjective. Brahms 'Lullaby' is still objectively MUCH BETTER piece of music than your crap that sounds like a million other songs today with OBJECTIVELY lame, uninspired and bad melodies that nobody will know existed after 100 years. 

And of course, here we go again with your questions: 'but the quality of melody is subjective... who decides what is a good melody or harmony?' ...... and my question to you once again is "ARE YOU DEAF?"If you are tone deaf (and there are out there many people who are tone deaf), then you probably need someone else to tell you which song is good since you're not able to hear it/recognize it. The difference between 'good' and 'bad' melodies isn't really such a big mystery. Even if someone gives you empirical evidence which songs are good or bad, it would still mean nothing to you since you're tone deaf and you lack sensibility to hear, feel and understand music. 

All that whining from 'subjectivists' about how music is subjective is only the result of the mind that is brainwashed with 'materialistic reductionism' approach that exists for the last 100 years, so you really believe that if someone can't show you empirical evidence for something, that simply doesn't exist. Yes, music quality still DOES exist. The difference between good and bad melodies still DOES exist even if someone isn't able to show you mathematically WHY. Even Leonard Bernstein who is able to explain and prove many things would also say for a bad melody that is bad/lame/forgettable just like he said for some pop songs back in the 60s "I like it". He also said that there are many bad songs out there. 

That's why some musicians like Ennio Morricone are considered great composers because they were, unlike many others, able to compose brilliant melodies/harmonies that made people feel the whole spectrum of emotions. Ennio's film music wasn't THAT complex, but it was great. He experimented a lot, he inspired many and changed how we perceive film music. He isn't subjectively better than Nicki Minaj or Ariana Grande or some hip-hop RUBBISH on the charts today. He is OBJECTIVELY better. You can like it or not, but that is true. 
That doesn't mean that there aren't some great songs out today, but we are talking about main charts which are also highly influencing everything else. 

You can disagree, but I already said many times what I needed to say and there is no need to go in circles. To your every statement, another question or trying to make fun of my views or trying to prove to me that music is subjective just imagine that I'm asking you "ARE YOU #$%$#& DEAF????"


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Strange Magic said:


> Blondie: _Rapture_ 1980. First rap song to make it big time.


Though rap is not my cup of tea, there _is_ some Japanese & Mexican rap that I find appealing. But maybe my limited likes are HipHop and not Rap. I clearly do not know the differences. :tiphat:


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

to some extent modern trends in music consumption have actually caused some stagnation in the pop/rock spheres - mainly thinking of streaming here. the most interesting things i've heard in the last few years have come from amateurs who would never make enough money selling their music to quit their day jobs.


pop music actually does have to be slightly adventurous by it's nature, despite being populist - there's a benefit to pop music for sounding "cutting edge" because a lot of the appeal is that it's the music that's big *now*. in practice this sometimes involves a lot of appropriation of more underground music aesthetics, like when trap beats became a big thing in pop, or the entire "brostep" phenomenon.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Popular culture in increasingly degenerate-good is bad; black is white; morality is relative. Of course, this has happened before-over and over again for thousands of years and it simply cannot be helped. This cultural degradation is mirrored in most of our art and music.


culture is as degenerate or prudish as the writer wants. culture is simultaneously made of overly moral scolds who want to control our lives, and made of morally and sexually depraved predators depending on the writer's mood.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I doubt this is true. Some of today's singers are incredibly agile with their voices, and I am willing to bet that most producers and songwriters who have had success know a large body of music in various styles and choose to write in the manner they do for musical and stylistic reasons, not because they are ignorant and cannot write in a style that would garner Gordon Goodwin's approval.


How did you arrive at this assumption? Quincy Jones would disagree with you, and I'm sure he knows plenty of modern songwriters and producers. I've already posted this quote earlier but you dismissed it for unclear reasons:



> I'm trying to isolate what you specifically believe the problem with modern pop is. It's the lack of formal musical knowledge on the part of the musicians?
> 
> _*Yes! And they don't even care they don't have it.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *nikola:* All that whining from 'subjectivists' about how music is subjective is only the result of the mind that is brainwashed with 'materialistic reductionism' approach that exists for the last 100 years, so you really believe that if someone can't show you empirical evidence for something, that simply doesn't exist. Yes, music quality still DOES exist. The difference between good and bad melodies still DOES exist even if someone isn't able to show you mathematically WHY."


We come to the heart of the matter; how we know things to be true. So far, the "materialistic reductionist" formula has proven to be the most successful way of increasing our real understanding of the world and even of music and art, and why and how we variously react to music/art while still preserving our autonomy as individual perceivers of such art and music. In that sense "subjectivists" are the true "objectivists"--they want to be shown evidence that there is inherent goodness, greatness in music/art that is intrinsic within the artwork and not brought to it by our own unique but often shared neurochemical/psychological responses to it. For us subjective but really objective sorts, the question is "show me" in terms other than the polling of a group. Is vanilla really the best ice cream?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> How did you arrive at this assumption?


For two reasons: 1) the songs we hear by any Pop artist represents just the tip of the iceberg of what they know and are able to do, and 2) I have faith in my experience of interacting with musicians and singers from a wide variety of styles and their integrity as artists and the depth of their talent.



> Quincy Jones would disagree with you, and I'm sure he knows plenty of modern songwriters and producers. I've already posted this quote earlier but you dismissed it for unclear reasons: Musicians today can't go all the way with the music because they haven't done their homework with the left brain. You can only get so far without technique. People limit themselves musically, man.


I dismiss this statement as reductive and painting with too broad a brush "musicians today." I doubt if pressed with specific examples he would be so categorical.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

,.....................


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

man I missed the series of posts where someone rated Missy Elliott like a 2/10. Missy Elliott was awesome.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> man I missed the series of posts where someone rated Missy Elliott like a 2/10. Missy Elliott was awesome.


I think you'll find she wasn't. Definitively rated 2/10, no other opinion can be valid.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I still remember this coming out and sounding like nothing on the radio. Of course this was 2001 and we couldn't go out and listen to Bhangra music very easily, so I wasn't particularly aware of the influences this was taking from (pop is omnivorus - it loves absorbing influences into itself) but it really sounded like it was beamed from another world.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> I think you'll find she wasn't. Definitively rated 2/10, no other opinion can be valid.


You're right....


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> We come to the heart of the matter; how we know things to be true. So far, the "materialistic reductionist" formula has proven to be the most successful way of increasing our real understanding of the world and even of music and art, and why and how we variously react to music/art while still preserving our autonomy as individual perceivers of such art and music. In that sense "subjectivists" are the true "objectivists"--they want to be shown evidence that there is inherent goodness, greatness in music/art that is intrinsic within the artwork and not brought to it by our own unique but often shared neurochemical/psychological responses to it. For us subjective but really objective sorts, the question is "show me" in terms other than the polling of a group. Is vanilla really the best ice cream?


Materialistic reductionism was actually always philosophy masqueraded as 'science'. Materialistic reductionism is today even more than ever before philosophy that tries to prove that God doesn't exist because there is 'no evidence' that it exists. It was an answer to religions and dogmas. It doesn't even try to be 'objective'. Making a space rocket doesn't have anything with materialistic reductionism. On quantum level matter does not exist. On a quantum level many weird things are happening that scientists can not explain and some scientists even came up with some wild conclusions like 'everything is consciousness, nothing is matter, reality reacts to consciousness' etc. 
So, you want proof that something in music is 'objective' while objects (like a chair) aren't even objective on a quantum level. You are looking at a chair and it's not even there. When you don't look at the chair, maybe it's also not there, but in a completely different way. So maybe the way consciousness perceives music is the most objective measurement you can come up with.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

fbjim said:


> man I missed the series of posts where someone rated Missy Elliott like a 2/10. Missy Elliott was awesome.


It's perfectly fine that she is perfect to you. She's not perfect to me. 2/10 is a perfect rating for some talking over beats, but you're right that beats could be good. I even heard some better hip-hop while rating songs from the charts and to be honest, I don't even remember her songs. I think there were 2 songs in top 40 by Missy and I didn't like those.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> Materialistic reductionism was actually always philosophy masqueraded as 'science'. Materialistic reductionism is today even more than ever before philosophy that tries to prove that God doesn't exist because there is 'no evidence' that it exists. It was an answer to religions and dogmas. It doesn't even try to be 'objective'. Making a space rocket doesn't have anything with materialistic reductionism. On quantum level matter does not exist. On a quantum level many weird things are happening that scientists can not explain and some scientists even came up with some wild conclusions like 'everything is consciousness, nothing is matter, reality reacts to consciousness' etc.
> So, you want proof that something in music is 'objective' while objects (like a chair) aren't even objective on a quantum level. You are looking at a chair and it's not even there. When you don't look at the chair, maybe it's also not there, but in a completely different way. So maybe the way consciousness perceives music is the most objective measurement you can come up with.


Big Deepak Chopra fan, I see. You might enjoy a YouTube video where ol' Deepak presumes to lecture a member of the audience about quantum physics and discovers that his target is a quantum physicist, The physicist says he understands the various words that Chopra uses but cannot derive any meaning from the sentences that Chopra uses.

But you are convinced that "greatness" resides as an inherent property of a piece of artwork. This is close to Voodoo--even Chopra might balk.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

There is great music I like.

These is great music I hate.

There is bad music I like.

There is bad music I hate.

ABBA's music can be trite and silly. I still like um.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Big Deepak Chopra fan, I see. You might enjoy a YouTube video where ol' Deepak presumes to lecture a member of the audience about quantum physics and discovers that his target is a quantum physicist, The physicist says he understands the various words that Chopra uses but cannot derive any meaning from the sentences that Chopra uses.


Deepak Chopra? :lol:
The possibility of consciousness in quantum physics came from quantum physicists first, not Deepak Chopra:

"The von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement."

So, the physicist was either not a physicist or he should probably find another job. Also, I don't know what Chopra said because I was never listening to anything by him. You could also learn more about quantum physics before you start to come up with answers.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> There is great music I like.
> 
> These is great music I hate.
> 
> ...


ABBA's music is some of the most musically complex and sophisticated pop ever. It's also extremely catchy and memorable. Trite and silly? Sometimes... probably.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *nikola:* "... consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement."


A follower of Bishop Berkeley then, perhaps...to be is to be perceived. You will note that your sentence quoted speaks of quantum measurement only. When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, was quantum physics still functioning? No human was around to measure its properties and effects. You might profit from reading the little essay by philosopher Ernest Nagel entitled _Naturalism Reconsidered_.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> ABBA's music is some of the most musically complex and sophisticated pop ever. It's also extremely catchy and memorable. Trite and silly? Sometimes... probably.


Glad we both like it!


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Glad we both like it!


ABBA was a fine pop act but they spawned the horrible Ace of Base in the 90's.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> ABBA was a fine pop act but they spawned the horrible Ace of Base in the 90's.


They "spawned"? How so?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> A follower of Bishop Berkeley then, perhaps...to be is to be perceived. You will note that your sentence quoted speaks of quantum measurement only. When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, was quantum physics still functioning? No human was around to measure its properties and effects. You might profit from reading the little essay by philosopher Ernest Nagel entitled _Naturalism Reconsidered_.


There's something deliciously ironic that a discussion about the "lowest" form of popular culture - that horrible pop music - spawns a discussion about the incomprehensible business of quantum theory.

If reductionist explanations for the simple minded are not possible (try to make sense of the explanation in wiki of "wave function collapse"), I wonder if such things can really exist. I'm sure physicists know what they're talking about, but when amateurs start to infer the meaning of life and make vast millions from marketing to the similarly ignorant, I reach for my Douglas Adams.

("The meaning of life is 42.")



> [Abba:]some of the most musically complex and sophisticated pop ever


At which point, it becomes prog, doesn't it?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> A follower of Bishop Berkeley then, perhaps...to be is to be perceived. You will note that your sentence quoted speaks of quantum measurement only. When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, was quantum physics still functioning? No human was around to measure its properties and effects. You might profit from reading the little essay by philosopher Ernest Nagel entitled _Naturalism Reconsidered_.


If you know about double slit experiment, then you know what's the 'problem'. If you know about the newer version - A delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment, then you know that things became even more weird. There are many theories about what's going on, but when you observe what's happening the results are different than when you don't. I also think this isn't place to talk about quantum physics, but you can watch this:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^nikola, we live in the, for us, Real World of love, hate, reason, cause, effect, science, discussion. Once you start wondering whether the chair in front of you exists or not, then you should question whether you exist--even the Cartesian answer is denied you thus. As Richard Feynman often said, nobody understands these things on the micro level (like quantum behavior). Here on the macro level, we understand a whole lot. And thus we are capable of trying to find within an art object intrinsic "greatness" and discuss why different people have different, sometimes quite unique, opinions on whether musics are good or bad. Your position is vastly different from quantum wobbliness--you sense the Platonic excellence that lies within excellent music, the excellence that should  be obvious to every perceiver. No sale. But we do like ABBA. I even like some tunes by Ace of Base.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I really don't know what Ace of Base has in common with ABBA except the fact that both bands are Swedish, but Roxette came before Ace of Base. 
Considering quality: 
ABBA > Roxette >> Ace of Base

I'm not familiar much with Ace of Base, but I listen to youtube now and remember some of their music. Pretty horrible dance production, minimalistic melodies... not too bad, but considering quality nowhere near to ABBA or even Roxette.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

My top 10 favorite ABBA songs would probably be:


10. That's Me
9. When I Kissed a Teacher
8. SOS
7. Dancing Queen
6. Head Over Heels
5. Mamma Mia
4. Fernando
3. Take a Chance on Me
2. The Winner Takes It All
1. Chiquitita

'The Name of the Game', considering the structure of 'verse-bridge-chorus', might be one of the most complex pop songs ever. 
And their vocals sing different melodies during the chorus in 'Two for the Price of one' - brilliant! 
Considering pop music, ABBA were the peak! Many things were going on in their music that might sound 'simple' to someone, but it is multilayered on many levels, complex and simply beautiful.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^nikola, we live in the, for us, Real World of love, hate, reason, cause, effect, science, discussion. Once you start wondering whether the chair in front of you exists or not, then you should question whether you exist--even the Cartesian answer is denied you thus. As Richard Feynman often said, nobody understands these things on the micro level (like quantum behavior). Here on the macro level, we understand a whole lot. And thus we are capable of trying to find within an art object intrinsic "greatness" and discuss why different people have different, sometimes quite unique, opinions on whether musics are good or bad. Your position is vastly different from quantum wobbliness--you sense the Platonic excellence that lies within excellent music, the excellence that should  be obvious to every perceiver. No sale. But we do like ABBA. I even like some tunes by Ace of Base.


Even though we know, most of us, that the sun is stationary and the Earth rotates - we still say the "sun sets" and "rises". We are subjective creatures by nature, and for some of us, the sun of our own universe.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Forster said:


> They "spawned"? How so?


Must everything be thoroughly explained to you, Forster? You're fond of playing the heel. Abba was a defining influence on that horrid 90's dance act-it wouldn't have existed as it did without the former.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Must everything be thoroughly explained to you, Forster? You're fond of playing the heel. Abba was a defining influence on that horrid 90's dance act-it wouldn't have existed as it did without the former.


Heel? Explain please!

Not according to Ace of Base.

As for ABBA, great for the first 5 years, then became Europarodies of themselves. I picked them out at the Euro Snog Contest (not hard of course) but never owned a single single or album. All just part of the hummable background to my teen years.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Forster said:


> Heel? Explain please!
> 
> Not according to Ace of Base.
> 
> As for ABBA, great for the first 5 years, then became Europarodies of themselves. I picked them out at the Euro Snog Contest (not hard of course) but never owned a single single or album. All just part of the hummable background to my teen years.


What Ace of Base have to say doesn't matter; the Abba influence is obvious.

Abba was great for the first five years? That's pretty good for a pop act.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> What Ace of Base have to say doesn't matter; the Abba influence is obvious.
> 
> Abba was great for the first five years? That's pretty good for a pop act.


Well, yes, of course. I wasn't suggesting they were here today gone tomorrow one hit wonders.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Forster said:


> Heel? Explain please!
> 
> Not according to Ace of Base.
> 
> As for ABBA, great for the first 5 years, then became Europarodies of themselves. I picked them out at the Euro Snog Contest (not hard of course) but never owned a single single or album. All just part of the hummable background to my teen years.


Actually, their later albums were getting better and better and everybody who was listening to their music knows that... except you... you have your opinion based on the lack of knowledge of how their albums sounded.
Bravo! 
ABBA as a band weren't really much active for more than 5 years anyway and their first 2 albums are considered to be their weakest. Between 1973 and 1981 they released only 8 studio albums, so the point of your baseless opinion really doesn't contribute to this thread in any way or form.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Even though we know, most of us, that the sun is stationary and the Earth rotates - we still say the "sun sets" and "rises". We are subjective creatures by nature, and for some of us, the sun of our own universe.


The sun is stationary from the point of view of the solar system, but rotates from the point of view of our galaxy.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Time for another time-out.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The thread is open again (for now).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My ABBA favorites in no order:

Summer Night City
The Eagle
When I Kissed the Teacher
Tiger
Dum Dum Diddle
Knowing Me, Knowing You 
Dancing Queen
That's Me
Money Money Money


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

nikola said:


> If you know about double slit experiment, then you know what's the 'problem'. If you know about the newer version - A delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment, then you know that things became even more weird. There are many theories about what's going on, but when you observe what's happening the results are different than when you don't. I also think this isn't place to talk about quantum physics, but you can watch this:[/video]


Not sure what this has to do with pop music, but it's an interesting bit of science.



nikola said:


> Actually, their later albums were getting better and better





nikola said:


> ABBA's music is some of the most musically complex and sophisticated pop ever.


These two comments prompt the questions, when is a pop song not a pop song? And when is a pop act not a pop act?

Take Genesis. Despite the more commercail appeal of their later period, and the fact that some of their songs made it into the charts, no-one would describe them as a pop act. Over three decades, they never had a number 1 in the UK, only one in the US; only 7 top 10s in the UK and 7 in the US. Yet, they sold 100 million albums worldwide (wiki). They were an album band.

*(I appreciate nikola's not in a position to respond at present, but though my thoughts are prompted by nikola's posts, the questions are to anyone else still reading!)


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Forster said:


> *(I appreciate *nikola's not in a position to respond at present*, but though my thoughts are prompted by nikola's posts, the questions are to anyone else still reading!)


?

Well, OK then. I guess I missed the fireworks.

Nikola does seem a bit of a brick wall when it comes to the opinions of others. C'est la vie.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> These two comments prompt the questions, when is a pop song not a pop song? And when is a pop act not a pop act?


This is one of the reasons why this thread is frustrating a good discussion. I've posted before that for the purposes of this thread I am defining Pop music as that which is the most popular songs receiving the highest radio programming and streaming plays and downloads/sales. This would include at least three popular styles: Pop, Hip-Hop, and Country. IOW the artists and songs that appear on the Billboard Top 100.

I watched the documentary about Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers this week and during the last part of his career (it was completed prior to his untimely death) he was commenting on the labels and how the quality of Rock had suffered. But he managed to continue making albums of high quality and topping the charts.

So to some degree I think that the perception of a lack of quality results as new styles replace the styles that an artist embraced when he first found success, he has the feeling that things have gotten worse. Mainly because the older artist doesn't feel as relevant or cutting edge any longer.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Of course there is a new style. 

What Rick Beato, Thoughty2 and others are trying to say is that the new style stifles creativity and originality by forcing artists to sound the same.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Big Deepak Chopra fan, I see. You might enjoy a YouTube video where ol' Deepak presumes to lecture a member of the audience about quantum physics and discovers that his target is a quantum physicist, The physicist says he understands the various words that Chopra uses but cannot derive any meaning from the sentences that Chopra uses.
> 
> But you are convinced that "greatness" resides as an inherent property of a piece of artwork. This is close to Voodoo--even Chopra might balk.


 Chopra is a well known fraud.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> Of course there is a new style.
> 
> What Rick Beato, Thoughty2 and others are trying to say is that the new style stifles creativity and originality by forcing artists to sound the same.


Rick Beato is entitled to his view, and members to endorse his views of course.

However, there seems at times here to be an Appeal to Authority: if Beato believes pop to have declined in quality, it must be so because, and only because, he has relevant industry experience and not because he can present a cogent argument to support his assertion. I certainly got tired of his strumming on a guitar showing how marvellous chord progressions "used to be" (by a selection of artists he likes)., without any kind of systematic survey of the whole music industry scene which should take account of the fact that the _kinds _of artists he likes are still active, just not selling millions in the top 40.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> Of course there is a new style.
> 
> What Rick Beato, Thoughty2 and others are trying to say is that the new style stifles creativity and originality by forcing artists to sound the same.


I simply don't buy that premise. Artists, talented artists, are not so easily manipulating into writing and recording music of which they can not invest with their innate artistry. These new styles are not pushed from the top down. Labels sign artists because of what they have already done and bring to the table. Hip-Hop is a perfect example. This style was incubated outside of the music industry and only later did major labels sign these artists.

In the same Petty documentary there is a scene with Petty and Roger McGuinn considering an outside song brought to the session by the label A&R rep. They rejected the song as not something McGuinn should record because it wasn't good or typical of what McGuinn was prone to put his name on. They were not polite in their response face to face with the A&R guy.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm a kid of the 90s but in 90s I didn't like pop music. But in the early 2000's I noticed that Pop got boring. There was tuneful dance and techno in the 90s, afterwards it was just boring rap. And apparently even the rap got worse as older rappers complain about it. Now I can appreciate the 90s pop music more. Lyrics were always bad or inappropriate for an adult, but pop muisc in the 90s had melody, harmony, rhythm. Now it seems like they have got rid of everything except the lyrics. And they added more posing, boobs and macho attitude. It seems like many things have a period of time with a peak and a decline.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

I took a look at my Vevo streaming music video app yesterday to see what they were serving up. There was a lot of current worldwide corporate pablum. The pop vocalists all sounded the same, and I like vocalists for their unique voice box. 

Of thirty or so of the threads, I could only find three threads that might meet my needs, a classical thread, an 80's rock/prog thread, and a Classic Country thread. You know, Willie & Waylon, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, et.al. What's that you say, no thunderous applause?



... I'm not surprised!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I am not an authority on the current state of pop music.

The majority of the few that I am familiar with sound the same.

If one believes that the videos of Beato and Thoughty2 are bogus, I really do not know how to respond.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> I am not an authority on the current state of pop music.
> 
> The majority of the few that I am familiar with sound the same.
> 
> If one believes that the videos of Beato and Thoughty2 are bogus, I really do not know how to respond.


I am not saying they are "bogus". I am saying that theirs is but one opinion, and one I consider biased and based on their preferred style of Pop song. For Beato to play a chord progression on a guitar in order to compare songs from different decades does not take into account the production of a modern Pop song which entails much more than a chord progression played on a guitar could come close to presenting.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Pop will "sound the same" to the extent that it follows trends. These trends frequently start in more "underground" musical spaces where they get absorbed and, to some extent, sanitized by pop. This does result in a glut of soundalikes sometimes, but pop tends to change its sound relatively frequently compared to other genres, as it has to adapt to what is "new". 


To be honest the absolute worst, most corporate music I hear today isn't really pop, which is sometimes at least adventurous by nature (pop is made for mass production, sure, but it also needs to sound "new" because part of the appeal is being trendy). Modern mainstream rock is far, far worse.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Forster said:


> Rick Beato is entitled to his view, and members to endorse his views of course.
> 
> However, there seems at times here to be an Appeal to Authority: if Beato believes pop to have declined in quality, it must be so because, and only because, he has relevant industry experience and not because he can present a cogent argument to support his assertion. I certainly got tired of his strumming on a guitar showing how marvellous chord progressions "used to be" (by a selection of artists he likes)., without any kind of systematic survey of the whole music industry scene which should take account of the fact that the _kinds _of artists he likes are still active, just not selling millions in the top 40.


Beato is not wrong in saying that melody or chord progressions are less popular than they used to be, as a result of the mainstream appeal of electronic/dance music, where these things are less important. It's just that this isn't a "decline" so much as a stylistic change. If you love melody and harmony, that's a problem for you, because the music no longer matches your tastes, but it's not that everyone suddenly sucks at writing melodies - it's that melody is no longer the main appeal of music for a lot of people.

If/when melody becomes popular again, artists will rise to fulfill the need for more melodic pop.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Whoever thinks melody and harmony are dead in pop music never listened to K-Pop.


----------



## smoledman (Feb 6, 2012)

nikola said:


> In my country many people didn't like Elton John simply because of his image and because he is gay and those people didn't even know what his music actually sounds like and were surprised how good his songs are when they finally heard them. Pop music is more about image than music and that is what sells. That's even more meaningful considering that Elton was never 'pretty' or 'cool enough' or 'sexy enough' to be a pop star or rock star, but people actually liked his music. Yes, everyone has a right not to like his music. I would expect that someone who is adjusted to modern pop charts or something like nu-metal, hip-hop etc. wouldn't like Elton at all. But who knows...
> Also, not all people are capable of understanding music. I don't expect a chicken or elephant to be able to hear the difference in quality between Beethoven and Nicki Minaj. I also don't expect that from people who are adjusted to derivative modern pop-rap crap.


I think people these days don't realize how miraculous Elton John was from 1970-1976.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I am defining Pop music as that which is the most popular songs receiving the highest radio programming and streaming plays and downloads/sales. This would include at least three popular styles: Pop, Hip-Hop, and Country. IOW the artists and songs that appear on the Billboard Top 100.


And after some debate on this, I agreed that if we confine ourselves to those songs that make it big in the pop charts, we can have some common ground on the state of pop.

What I was pondering was where we observe the boundaries; what are the exceptions; how can we distinguish between "pop" and "non-pop"?

I already identified two bands (ABBA and Genesis) that would generally be accepted as belonging to pop and non-pop respectively. What about Bowie? Plenty of singles' chart success, though not many number 1s, given how prolific he was. Would he count as an "album" (therefore non-pop) act? He didn't have a number 1 album in the US until _Blackstar_ (but eight no 1s in the UK).

My point is not just the obvious - that the boundaries are porous, blurred - but that because they are porous, it's much harder to define what pop is than simply sales or styles. I also think that any analysis that depends on mere recollection of a past decade is inevitably prone to bias. When I referred to the "hummable background to my teen years", that's not meant as a disparaging comment on ABBA, but a comment on our perceptions of our musical environment at a time of life when we are forming our tastes; extracting what we regard as worthy from the dross.

And there was plenty of dross in all the decades under scrutiny.

For those of us who've moved on from those formative years, the musical background - or, more significantly, our perception of it - has changed. We ignore what teens are buying because we're not teens any more.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Whoever thinks melody and harmony are dead in pop music never listened to K-Pop.


This thread is mostly about Western music. I've already mentioned in passing that the Asian market is a bit better in this regard, although I sometimes suspected that it is also slowly simplifying.

Here is an excerpt from an Interview with Swedish songwriter/producer (and Jazz guitarist) Andreas Öberg who writes songs for Korean and Japanese artists:



> The Asian pop music market is amazing. The fans are very devoted and they still buy physical albums to support the artists.
> 
> *The musical taste over there is sometimes more advanced than in the west.* As a writer you are not as limited when it comes to the possibility of using *more intricate chords and harmonies.*


So this suggests that producers are nowadays indeed more limited when writing songs for the Western market.

This also disproves the repeated claim in this thread, that modern music production is so complex that there is no more room for harmonic / melodic interest. If that was true, it should be true for all countries, but apparently it's not the same in Asia.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^ For me, I don't think production techniques are so complex as to not leave any room for musical concerns. Rather its the emphasis on production novelty that has trended more so and become as much a concern as the notes themselves and perhaps even more so at times. Production value/aesthetic and music composition are not mutually exclusive in my experience.

One might be able to show that the quirkier the production, the more reliant it might be on chordal loops, sampled hooks and general production sound for its own sake, which will perhaps have a limited musical reach compared to what is possible and has been used before.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> And after some debate on this, I agreed that if we confine ourselves to those songs that make it big in the pop charts, we can have some common ground on the state of pop.
> 
> What I was pondering was where we observe the boundaries; what are the exceptions; how can we distinguish between "pop" and "non-pop"?
> 
> ...


I agree.

Last night I was listening to a concert of a duo, The Civil Wars, that came out of the Nashville songwriting community, and I've followed somewhat (they broke up in 2014). As I was listening I was thinking "Is this Pop?"






They are popular but AFAIK have never cracked the Billboard Hot 100. Their style straddles several genres, which is true of music which I usually find interesting.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

chipia said:


> This thread is mostly about Western music. I've already mentioned in passing that the Asian market is a bit better in this regard, although I sometimes suspected that it is also slowly simplifying.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from an Interview with Swedish songwriter/producer (and Jazz guitarist) Andreas Öberg who writes songs for Korean and Japanese artists:
> 
> ...


Andreas Öberg is quite a great composer -- good to hear his name here.

Anyway, I mentioned K-pop because it is an *international phenomenon* that western audiences have consumed for over a decade now -- instead of selling only in the asian market (like J-pop). That shows that young people in this side of the globe can still enjoy sweet melodies and intricate musical ideas.

However, it's difficult for western industries to replicate K-pop in the West, even though many K-pop composers are western. Why is that? In my opinion, it's not only about a difference of tastes (as Andreas said), but rather a matter of the structure in the music business.

My point is that companies in Korea have creative control over the artists, the music and the concepts¹. Although this might look like a moral nightmare for Art (given our belief in individual non-corporative artistic expression), it ends up working in favor of _creativity_ due to other incentives at play:

1) K-pop companies can take more risks (music-wise) because they have more stability (financial, contractual and reputation) and there's a clear-cut cycle of promotion in TV stations and radio -- so experimentation can be worth it, and a little bit of failure is acceptable. 
2) K-pop idols are trained by the industry from a young age, which makes them more skilled performers than your average pop artist, which affects the possibilities of composition and the quality of delivery. 
3) The forementioned factors allow market strategies that aim at different niches of pop music -- instead of the industry promoting only the main trend at the moment over and over again. 
4) K-pop wants to grow outside of Korea, and for that they must stand out from the global standard. 
5) K-pop is not only music, but also dance, video, fashion, beauty, lifestyle, and public relations, so companies can bait audiences with those things while sneaking in whacky music in the package.
6) The government invests in K-pop.

Meanwhile, western companies also took control over the music business in the West (at the cost of artists), but the structures here are stale and destructive, so the incestives are all anti-risk². Here the industry only promotes the safest product possible according to the latest market trend, and the industry can only manufacture in large scale overtly simple stuff.

¹ There is authoral and indie music in Korea too.
² There is authoral and indie music in the West too.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

*2) K-pop idols are trained by the industry from a young age, which makes them more skilled performers than your average pop artist, which affects the possibilities of composition and the quality of delivery. *

Here's one of the K-Pop things that turns me off - it's a high pressure vocation to be a pop artist there . . . there's been nervous breakdowns and suicides.

Aside from that, and in spite of the diversity of musical "styles", I find that that diversity falls within a very narrow range of styles, at least to my Western eyes and ears. There's a real boy-band/girl band thing, and I generally prefer my musical artists to have more than singing, dancing, and a pretty face in their bag . . . I like artists that play instruments or compose songs as well.

I'm not a fan of the engineered "sound", which often includes programmed drums.

The songs seem formulaic.

Of course, there are exceptions . . . some K-Pop doesn't do these things, and there are Western artists I like that are only song-and-dance entertainers.

On a whim I Googled up Best K-Pop song of 2021, and got a hit with NME's *"25 best K-pop songs of 2021"*, with a byline that reads *"This year, K-pop continued to bring their A-game - and even took things to the next level"*.

#1 is IU - 'Lilac'. The describe it thusly: _"Lilac', IU's first album in four years, is nothing short of magnificent. The 10-track comeback record not only reestablished her as an all-rounder, who has the ability to transition from elegant disco pop to soaring ballads to smoky R&B seamlessly, but also as an expert storyteller and songwriter. On the album's title track, IU tells her most relatable tale yet: the bittersweet journey of letting your youth go."

"While age has always played a significant part in IU's music - *'CHAT-SHIRE''s 'Twenty-three*' is a spunky coming-of-age bop, while the minimalist '*Palette*' finds her embracing adulthood on her own terms - '*Lilac*' feels more intimate and knowing than the rest. Seeped in nostalgia, this surprisingly dancey number is a heartfelt love letter to the singer's roaring 20s before she enters a new decade. "The day when the lilac flower withers, good bye / This kind of ending suits us," she sighs on the sparkling chorus, as she looks forward to the rest of life's journey. Trust IU to make breaking up with your young self sound so sweet and poetic. SR"

"Best bit: Every time the horns kick in - but especially so towards the tail end when it's paired with IU's dreamy ad-libs. Instant classic."_

OK. _"Dreamy ad-libs"_ and _"Instant classic"_. Ugh. Instant turn-off junk phrases. But for the sake of fairness, let's take a gander at the tracks to which they gave a shout-out.

*IU - CHAT-SHIRE''s 'Twenty-three'*





Man. Stunning video. VERY Western-sounding. Catchy. Infectious bass groove. Well executed. Minor upgrading for the foreign phrases they snuck in. One demerit for the virtual drums.

*IU - Palette*





Well, inoffensive ballad-y Hip Hop, and even though it's a nice bunch of notes, it sounds generic. Clever use of a couple of English phrases. IU (I guess that's her "name") is VERY camera ready. I won't deduct for its genericism, but I will deduct for the too hotly mixed programmed percussion.

*IU - Lilac*





Dance. Fine. Stunning direction for the video, stunning performance from IU. Great video editing. Wonderfully poignant ending. Again with the phrases in English, this time the signs in the station. The arrangement felt rather time-warpy though, as if I'd stumbled back into 1978 Disco, especially those counterpoint octave strings. I don't know - maybe that was the point.

*OK, I can see the allure*. Still rather formulaic . . . so very engineered to be perfect in every way. But vocally, it's as good as the best of today's layered vocals, and I do like me some layered vocals. Still . . . it's just so over-engineered . . . which, oddly enough, I really like as well.

Perfection is overrated. Still, I do prefer *The Beatles*, with their very polished, slick, artisan music over the *Rolling Stones*, with their whatever grunge garage punky sneery sloppiness.

Maybe that's why I'm impressed with all three of these tracks. Really, my main complaint is the drums, but that's just a subjective stylistic dislike, and I belong to the minority of listeners that DON'T "love" that. The three tracks aren't just fluffy songs lyrically (to the best of my understanding, not knowing a word of Korean) . . . the themes seem to have some depth to them.

Damn it. I really wanted to rip these random tracks to shreds.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

pianozach said:


> *2) K-pop idols are trained by the industry from a young age, which makes them more skilled performers than your average pop artist, which affects the possibilities of composition and the quality of delivery. *
> 
> Here's one of the K-Pop things that turns me off - it's a high pressure vocation to be a pop artist there . . . there's been nervous breakdowns and suicides.
> 
> ...


You're right that K-pop is a high-pressure industry, and there's a lot of shady stuff going on (which is not exclusive to the music industry, btw).

That said, this is also true in the West due to our own problems. Here musicians barely have a chance to promote their music, and most won't be able to pay the bills, and will succumb and give up, and get a poor job afterwards. How many musicians don't have mental breakdowns here?

Regarding music itself, K-pop does _pop music_, so of course it'll fall within some boundaries and the production will have a modern flair. However, those boundaries are actually pretty big in K-pop regarding sonic textures and character. In fact, K-pop borrows from *many* genres across the last 70 years of popular music (really!), and sometimes you'll find songs switching genres from one section to the next. In this regard, K-pop is famous for playing with structure -- meaning that the songs will probably play the chorus three times, but the verses can change and the bridge goes wild.

And some groups produce their own music, although it's rare. Honestly, I prefer when groups hire great composers/produces who have great technique.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

pianozach said:


> *Damn it. I really wanted to rip these random tracks to shreds.*


*

Hahahaha, IU is quite good. My favorite track of hers is an old one, -- Red Shoes. It has a broadway vibe, in a good way.

Honestly, it hurts my mind to make a list of K-pop recommendations, especially because I'm not into it as much nowadays, but I'd like to mention that there's some "indie" stuff at the fringe of K-pop, which crosses the line of pop. For example:






Besides that, here's a lot of tasteful "soul" and "hip hop" stuff in K-pop too, and songs that sound more like J-pop than western pop.

That said, my favorite groups are usually from one of the biggest companies -- SM Entertainment, because they are extremely eclectic and add some really tasteful harmonies and vocal lines, including album tracks. Red Velvet, EXO, NCT, f(x), Aespa -- (almost) always interesting.*


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Livly_Station said:


> Here musicians barely have a chance to promote their music, and most won't be able to pay the bills, and will succumb and give up, and get a poor job afterwards. How many musicians don't have mental breakdowns here?


Most musicians make a decent living but on a local scale. These are musicians working every week playing in clubs, parties, if the city is large enough playing/singing/writing commercials/jingles, as well as teaching private students. They are just not recording for radio and having public careers. In a town like Nashville there are many musicians making very good livings playing on sessions and touring with name acts. This is true for large cities with an active music scene.

Working musicians like this amount to probably 90+% of the total. Those artist/bands making records under their own name and rising to the level of fame account for a tiny percentage of the number of journeyman musicians.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The bottom line is that I do not care for Justin Bieber. 

So what?

If a person likes Justin Bieber, then my opinion and $1 will buy you a cheap cup of coffee at Starbucks's.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Most musicians make a decent living but on a local scale. These are musicians working every week playing in clubs, parties, if the city is large enough playing/singing/writing commercials/jingles, as well as teaching private students. They are just not recording for radio and having public careers. In a town like Nashville there are many musicians making very good livings playing on sessions and touring with name acts. This is true for large cities with an active music scene.
> 
> Working musicians like this amount to probably 90+% of the total. Those artist/bands making records under their own name and rising to the level of fame account for a tiny percentage of the number of journeyman musicians.


This is all true, but you're really downplaying the anguish and insecurity you can find in a large number of people who want to make music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Livly_Station said:


> Hahahaha, IU is quite good. My favorite track of hers is an old one, -- _Red Shoes_. It has a broadway vibe, in a good way.
> 
> Honestly, it hurts my mind to make a list of K-pop recommendations, especially because I'm not into it as much nowadays, but I'd like to mention that there's some "indie" stuff at the fringe of K-pop, which crosses the line of pop. For example:
> 
> ...


Gawd that *Lee Jin Ah* track is really Proggy. I appreciate that she plays the piano, and not just simple stuff. Not a fan of her vocal style, but then again, I don't like Geddy Lee's voice much either. Great arrangement.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Livly_Station said:


> This is all true, but you're really downplaying the anguish and insecurity you can find in a large number of people who want to make music.


Let's talk about actors instead.

You're really downplaying the anguish and insecurity you can find in a large number of people who want to be actors.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Livly_Station said:


> This is all true, but you're really downplaying the anguish and insecurity you can find in a large number of people who want to make music.


Yes, it can be distressing to have talent and dreams and for one reason or another have them go unfulfilled. There are many reasons why someone with talent does not succeed. Luck plays a role. Being at the right place, at the right time, with the right sound is often a matter of random luck. Of course it is also true that the harder one works the "luckier" they are. That said, there are plenty of dedicated musicians, with talent, who work and work and do not achieve what they wanted.

But this is true for occupations other than having to do with music. It is a part of life that we all must face, not just musicians aspiring to Pop fame.

Often it is simply a matter of seeing what is really important. It is far more fulfilling to be a working musician on a local scale than a bitter failed Pop "star."


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, it can be distressing to have talent and dreams and for one reason or another have them go unfulfilled. There are many reasons why someone with talent does not succeed. Luck plays a role. Being at the right place, at the right time, with the right sound is often a matter of random luck. Of course it is also true that the harder one works the "luckier" they are. That said, there are plenty of dedicated musicians, with talent, who work and work and do not achieve what they wanted.
> 
> But this is true for occupations other than having to do with music. It is a part of life that we all must face, not just musicians aspiring to Pop fame.
> 
> Often it is simply a matter of seeing what is really important. It is far more fulfilling to be a working musician on a local scale than a bitter failed Pop "star."


Of course people can fail and suffer in any field, but there are areas where it's just tougher while others are safer. However, this conversation is offtopic. Let's stop it here.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

pianozach said:


> Gawd that *Lee Jin Ah* track is really Proggy. I appreciate that she plays the piano, and not just simple stuff. Not a fan of her vocal style, but then again, I don't like Geddy Lee's voice much either. Great arrangement.


Lee Jin Ah is an amazing pianist -- her solos are always tasteful and harmonically rich. Her voice though is... perplexing, it takes some time to get used to. But at the end I think her childish voice adds to her charm. And it's awesome how much she's comfortable with her voice. She owns it.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

pianozach said:


> *(...)
> On a whim I Googled up Best K-Pop song of 2021, and got a hit with NME's "25 best K-pop songs of 2021", with a byline that reads "This year, K-pop continued to bring their A-game - and even took things to the next level".
> *


*

Here's a round-up of 15 favourite 2021 K-pop songs.
(with mention of harmony, tritones, lydian mode, modal mixture, etc...)
A fun watch.





*


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I am not saying they are "bogus". I am saying that theirs is but one opinion, and one I consider biased and based on their preferred style of Pop song. For Beato to play a chord progression on a guitar in order to compare songs from different decades does not take into account the production of a modern Pop song which entails much more than a chord progression played on a guitar could come close to presenting.


Production alone doesn't make good music.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> Production alone doesn't make good music.


What makes good music is up to the consumer. People have different tastes for what makes music interesting to their ears.

Nowadays, there's a huge focus on _texture_ and _timbre_ as major factors for music-making, worked out to the smallest detail in the computer. That and "beat", "drops", and other trends. Of course, an oldschool song recorded 50 years ago can still _sound_ even better to my ears (due to a 'live' feel and engineering), but I get the appeal of more eletronic sounds and other modern techniques that you can only hear in modern music. And I must say a lot of craft goes into that.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> Production alone doesn't make good music.


There is no such thing as "production alone." Something has to be produced, a song, performance, band, record. Production of the music is a multi-varied process, and has contributed greatly to the presentation of the music - often.

But my favorite presentation of music is *acoustic guitar and vocal*: very little production other than capturing the performance in well-engineered sound. Guitar/vocals present the song as a song in its purest form.

However, my comments in this thread are an attempt to acknowledge the reality of what is happening with Pop music. I am not expressing my personal opinion so much as saying what I think of the state of the Pop music market and how I gauge the quality of the songwriting/production/performance of the songs/records being released, whether I like them or not is irrelevant.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> The bottom line is that I do not care for Justin Bieber.
> 
> So what?
> 
> If a person likes Justin Bieber, then my opinion and $1 will buy you a cheap cup of coffee at Starbucks's.


If you can get a cup of coffee at Starbuck's for $1 anywhere in Fairfax County, I'm impressed.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

This was an allegorical statement.

My youngest son works as a studio musician and teacher in Los Angeles (He is one of these journeymen musicians San is talking about).

We were discussing this topic and he and I feel the same way.

If one can make millions of dollars selling mindless tripe to the masses, one can cry all the way to the bank.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> If one can make millions of dollars selling mindless tripe to the masses, one can cry all the way to the bank.


I doubt that those millions of people who listen to and buy today's Pop music think it is "mindless tripe." They find value in it, and listen to it for the same reason you enjoy Classical music. What bothers me about an attitude that denigrates today's Pop music is the insult that is directed to all those people who enjoy it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I doubt that those millions of people who listen to and buy today's Pop music think it is "mindless tripe." They find value in it, and listen to it for the same reason you enjoy Classical music. What bothers me about an attitude that denigrates today's Pop music is the insult that is directed to all those people who enjoy it.


There is a long tradition of older generations disliking the popular music of their children. I participate in that, as my daughter wants to listen to Justin Bieber, and I very much do not. However, it would be foolish to conclude from that that today's popular music is intrinsically inferior to that of our own youth. When the Beatles 'invaded' America, older folk greeted them with exactly the same derision. Mrs. Rosso, my first grade teacher (at the height of the British invasion) said, "I step on the Beatles, and I kick the Rolling Stones.

What has happened to American popular music over the past 100 years is two important fundamental developments (as well as many smaller ones): First, the influx of non-European traditions, at first primarily those of African-Americans, and then of Latinos and Asians, and second, the influence of electrical and then electronic instruments and equipment.

If you reject popular music that reflects those two fundamental developments, then you stand on the other side of a vast and deep divide from many of today's most prevalent popular music genres. Which is fine, but if one stands on that side, there isn't much point in complaining about the death of pop harmony, or whatever else is supposedly going on across the chasm.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I doubt that those millions of people who listen to and buy today's Pop music think it is "mindless tripe." They find value in it, and listen to it for the same reason you enjoy Classical music. What bothers me about an attitude that denigrates today's Pop music is the insult that is directed to all those people who enjoy it.


SanAntone mi amigo--you are beginning to sound like me. I loathe most of today's pop, but then I always did. But that's Just Me. I like to say that I am not the audience for which musics I dislike are created or performed. But I never doubt the right of others to like whatever they will--their tastes are as valid to them as mine are to me.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

fluteman said:


> What has happened to American popular music over the past 100 years is two important fundamental developments (as well as many smaller ones): First, the influx of non-European traditions, at first primarily those of African-Americans, and then of Latinos and Asians, and second, the influence of electrical and then electronic instruments and equipment.
> 
> If you reject popular music that reflects those two fundamental developments, then you stand on the other side of a vast and deep divide from many of today's most prevalent popular music genres. Which is fine, but if one stands on that side, there isn't much point in complaining about the death of pop harmony, or whatever else is supposedly going on across the chasm.


But nobody in this thread rejected the African-American and Latin influences in modern music! If anything some of the most harmonically sophisticated genres were invented by African-Americans and Latinos e.g. Jazz and Bossa Nova. The Death of Harmony is only a recent phenomenon. The Non-European influences happened decades earlier.

Neither did anyone here reject electronic instruments. Tons of music in the past combined electronic instruments with interesting harmonies, melodies and song structures e.g. the prog and fusion bands of the 70s, even some modern K-Pop.

The death of harmony seems to be a separate phenomenon that can't be explained through these influences.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

To my ears the majority of today's mainstream American Pop Music is boring.

Just because it is boring to me does not mean:

a. That I am unaware that musical styles change.

b. That I am unaware that there has been resistance of older generations to new music.

c. That I think the teenagers of today are less intelligent than they were a few decades ago.

d. That the artists of today are inferior to the artists of the 1980's or whatever.

f. That the current music in inherently inferior. It may still be good; it is just boring to me. Heck, I find that most of the music of Verdi is boring. The last I checked the Met is still programming Verdi.

g. Even if current pop music is bad, so what? 

I am really getting tired of being accused of believing in stuff I do not believe because I find some music to be boring.

I have stated this many times before in this forum. I frequently have had to perform music that is very boring to play. I realize that in spite of my feelings, there are members of the audience who like and want to hear the music. I owe it to them to do as good a job of performing the music as I can and to keep my opinions to myself.

I am not as big an a**hole as it may appear to be.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> To my ears the majority of today's mainstream American Pop Music is boring.
> 
> Just because it is boring to me does not mean:
> 
> ...


I agree on every count. And FWIW, my post was not directed at you, nor at the OP personally, but was meant only to address the topic raised by the OP's first post that started this lengthy thread. In fact, I always try my best to look at the thread title and/or post no. 1 and make sure my post relates to one or both. And looking again at post no. 1 here, I don't think the OP was being an a$$hole or unreasonable in any way in writing it, though I do not entirely agree with its premise.

P.S. In HS, I had to play the March from Aida endlessly at each graduation ceremony, including my own. That transcended boredom and entered the realm of the deeply painful.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

chipia said:


> But nobody in this thread rejected the African-American and Latin influences in modern music! If anything some of the most harmonically sophisticated genres were invented by African-Americans and Latinos e.g. Jazz and Bossa Nova. The Death of Harmony is only a recent phenomenon. The Non-European influences happened decades earlier.
> 
> Neither did anyone here reject electronic instruments. Tons of music in the past combined electronic instruments with interesting harmonies, melodies and song structures e.g. the prog and fusion bands of the 70s, even some modern K-Pop.
> 
> The death of harmony seems to be a separate phenomenon that can't be explained through these influences.


Maybe. But even some of the earliest electronic artists (by which I mean the avant-garde ones who were poking around with tape machines and synthesizers which looked like telephone switchboards) "rejected" harmony. Subotnick hated that the most popular synthesizers used keyboards, because he thought electronic music should embrace the fact that their mechanics are entire different from acoustic instruments.

In some sense, rather than devolving, electronic has actually slowly evolved toward the original vision of electronic pioneers where timbral exploration and progression are more important than conventional harmony. With electronic instruments and synthesizers "progressing" first as a gimmick, then as a thing to add to the production to conventional rock and pop songs, then to dance, and eventually stretching dance forms to become a more "respectable" art form (at least to upper-middle-class critics) in itself, melody and "catchiness" became less important than sustained atmosphere and timbral exploration.

And because pop loves devouring the fringe and avant garde into itself, these influences downfilter into the mainstream (though this is less experimental electronic and more general EDM/hip-hop/techno influences on pop), and suddenly pop is less concerned with melody and more with cool synth textures.

(caveat: this is *reeeeeeeeally* oversimplifying the history of electronic music)

(caveat 2: i'm skipping over the entirety of the influence of hip-hop, a form which- almost inherently- de-emphasizes harmony)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> Maybe. But even some of the earliest electronic artists (by which I mean the avant-garde ones who were poking around with tape machines and synthesizers which looked like telephone switchboards) "rejected" harmony. Subotnick hated that the most popular synthesizers used keyboards, because he thought electronic music should embrace the fact that their mechanics are entire different from acoustic instruments.
> 
> In some sense, rather than devolving, electronic has actually slowly evolved toward the original vision of electronic pioneers where timbral exploration and progression are more important than conventional harmony. With electronic instruments and synthesizers "progressing" first as a gimmick, then as a thing to add to the production to conventional rock and pop songs, then to dance, and eventually stretching dance forms to become a more "respectable" art form (at least to upper-middle-class critics) in itself, melody and "catchiness" became less important than sustained atmosphere and timbral exploration.
> 
> ...


I thinking last night that today's Pop, Hip-Hop, and some Art Rock, in their embrace of the "studio as instrument", are close to the aesthetic of Electronic Music, or maybe more accurately Electro-Acoustic Music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Yeah, I mean, the most infamously "festival-friendly" and purist-hated form of electronic, mainstream dubstep (aka "brostep"), originated as a relatively underground scene before being downfiltered into the mainstream. Similar things happened with other electronic forms that the less pop-minded listeners first liked - a la "festival/anthem trance" (which, incidentally, purists disliked *because* it was more melodic than the stuff they liked), and even hip-hop to a large extent.

There was actually a period where the hint of melody would get you sniffed at by an electronic music purist and the most highly regarded critical stuff were subgenres like minimal techno. 


also to be clear, if you love harmony, it makes perfect sense that you'd probably not like this development, and it's not unfair to say this element is, to a large extent, de-emphasized with the current trends of mainstream music. What I disagree with is the idea that it's a "lost art" that musicians have stopped knowing how to do. 

If there's a large market demand for more melodic pop music, pop artists will eventually fulfill it, because that's their job.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

just as an example, this is the kind of stuff electronic guys made when they were sick of harmony






and this is what it sounded like when it became critically acclaimed enough for pop to get its hands on it


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> Yeah, I mean, the most infamously "festival-friendly" and purist-hated form of electronic, mainstream dubstep (aka "brostep"), originated as a relatively underground scene before being downfiltered into the mainstream. Similar things happened with other electronic forms that the less pop-minded listeners first liked - a la "festival/anthem trance" (which, incidentally, purists disliked *because* it was more melodic than the stuff they liked), and even hip-hop to a large extent.
> 
> There was actually a period where the hint of melody would get you sniffed at by an electronic music purist and the most highly regarded critical stuff were subgenres like minimal techno.
> 
> ...


Melodic Pop never disappeared, there are always artists whose songs are both melodically and harmonically focused. Lady Gaga, Adele, and many Black artists material are full of melodies and harmonic interest. And lest we forget, artists such as Celine Dion, Beyonce, Cher, Whitney Houston, and their contemporary soulmates have consistently recorded fairly traditional Pop songs along with their more rhythmic dance material.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Truth be told... this is a thead where a bunch of people who do NOT listen to any modern music are discussing modern music's merits.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Livly_Station said:


> Truth be told... this is a thead where a bunch of people who do NOT listen to any modern music are discussing modern music's merits.


Truth be told, you are not describing my listening habits regarding what you call modern music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Melodic Pop never disappeared, there are always artists whose songs are both melodically and harmonically focused. Lady Gaga, Adele, and many Black artists material are full of melodies and harmonic interest. And lest we forget, artists such as Celine Dion, Beyonce, Cher, Whitney Houston, and their contemporary soulmates have consistently recorded fairly traditional Pop songs along with their more rhythmic dance material.


The African-American and African-Latin influence on American popular music didn't mean the end of conventional western melody and harmony, far from it. But in a lot of contexts it did mean a greater emphasis on other musical elements, most notably rhythm and timbre. The same is true of the impact of electronics. The focus on triad-based diatonic harmony, and elaborate harmonic progressions, is a feature of the 19th century European tradition. That hasn't disappeared, but the importance of other things has increased in many current musical genres.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Truth be told... this is a thead where a bunch of people who do NOT listen to any modern music are discussing modern music's merits.


You've read all 550 posts? It's true that some contributors admit to not listening to certain types of "modern" music ( me included) while others spend an inordinate amount of time listening to music they despise. Odd, eh?

But there's no bunches here, and no consensus on what music falls under the OP's "pop" label.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Truth be told, you are not describing my listening habits regarding what you call modern music.


Truth be told... you can use discretion to pick up that I'm not talking especifically about you.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Forster said:


> You've read all 550 posts? It's true that some contributors admit to not listening to certain types of "modern" music ( me included) while others spend an inordinate amount of time listening to music they despise. Odd, eh?
> 
> But there's no bunches here, and no consensus on what music falls under the OP's "pop" label.


Yes, I've read. And there's generalization is my post, of course.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Livly_Station said:


> Truth be told... you can use discretion to pick up that I'm not talking especifically about you.


You took a pot shot at the entire group of members taking part in this discussion. You chose to do that instead of making a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> You took a pot shot at the entire group of members taking part in this discussion. You chose to do that instead of making a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.


Actually not. "bunch" =/= "all", but I don't know why I have to explain that. Besides, it's rather obvious how much the statement is truthful -- not 100%, but not that far away.

But yes, I chose to do a unsympathetic pot shot because I thought it was a "thoughtful" contribution. First of all, people must be honest with themselves about how much they actually hear of pop music. Everbody here is supposedly a classical enthusiast, and probably listen to other music too... so it's where we're spending our free time when we sit to listen to music. I guess some others also work with music and are a little more exposed to modern trends, but how much?

This discussion is essentially _"quantitative"_ besides _"qualitative"_ -- there's _a lot_ of pop music out there... and we're talking about all of them here.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please comment on the thread content and not other members.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> Actually not. "bunch" =/= "all", but I don't know why I have to explain that. Besides, it's rather obvious how much the statement is truthful -- not 100%, but not that far away.
> 
> But yes, I chose to do a unsympathetic pot shot because I thought it was a "thoughtful" contribution. First of all, people must be honest with themselves about how much they actually hear of pop music. Everbody here is supposedly a classical enthusiast, and probably listen to other music too... so it's where we're spending our free time when we sit to listen to music. I guess some others also work with music and are a little more exposed to modern trends, but how much?
> 
> This discussion is essentially _"quantitative"_ besides _"qualitative"_ -- there's _a lot_ of pop music out there... and we're talking about all of them here.


The problem with "generalisations" is that they are, by definition, referring to the 'general'...ie pretty much everyone, if not everyone. Several posters have taken on the task (entirely voluntarily, and probably fruitlessly) of defending "pop" music from the same kind of generalisation that I'm objecting to now.

Why?

For the same reason that we sometimes staunchly defend the classical that we love, or the right of people to love the classical we hate. Because music - not just classical - is important to us, and "pop" and "prog" and "alt" etc are or have been important to us as we grew up or are growing up.

So, don't be surprised if we get as prickly about pop as we do about Chopin, Cherubini or Carter.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

I believe the mods have banned this topic. So let's move on.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> I believe the mods have banned this topic. So move on.


I believe Art Rock "banned" commenting on each other. My post was about generalisations.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Forster said:


> I believe Art Rock "banned" commenting on each other. My post was about generalisations.


Me neither. What the mods don't want is this meta-philosophical discussion on forum members, individually or in general.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm not aware that meta-philosophical discussions about discussions about pop music are against the Forum's ToS.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> The problem with "generalisations" is that they are, by definition, referring to the 'general'...ie pretty much everyone, if not everyone. Several posters have taken on the task (entirely voluntarily, and probably fruitlessly) of defending "pop" music from the same kind of generalisation that I'm objecting to now.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


The OP used generalities: "harmony"; "Pop" - which got the thread off to a bad start.

It wasn't until pretty far in before he specified just what he meant by "Pop" - choosing what he thought was the most superficial, trite kind of non-Classical music - and then limiting the genre to only those artists he'd heard of or thought were popular enough.

But the OP basic wrong assumption or focus was with "harmony". (I and others have made this point before) "Harmony" is often not an important aspect of some of best Pop. And anyway, even if a song only has three chords, it can be very effective, evocative, moving, catchy, melodic, interesting, perfectly crafted, and in the final analysis, very good music.

And I haven't even mentioned lyrics or vocals.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> But the OP basic wrong assumption or focus was with "harmony". (I and others have made this point before) "Harmony" is often not an important aspect of some of best Pop.


True, Harmony isn't an important aspect of _modern_ pop. But it used to be important just a few decades ago, that's what I meant by the "death of harmony".

Obviously, different people have different priorities. Some people just need a song to have good vocals and they will be happy. Others have higher demands and want quality vocals accompanied by interesting harmonies and embedded in interesting song structures.

My impression is that older pop music made more effort to provide sophistication on all levels whereas nowadays the focus is mostly on superficial sound effects or catchy hooks. Listeners who want more than that won't find much of interest, whereas older pop offered something for everybody.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> True, Harmony isn't an important aspect of _modern_ pop. But it used to be important just a few decades ago, that's what I meant by the "death of harmony".
> 
> Obviously, different people have different priorities. Some people just need a song to have good vocals and they will be happy. Others have higher demands and want quality vocals accompanied by interesting harmonies and embedded in interesting song structures.
> 
> My impression is that older pop music made more effort to provide sophistication on all levels whereas nowadays the focus is mostly on superficial sound effects or catchy hooks. Listeners who want more than that won't find much of interest, whereas older pop offered something for everybody.


Well, there's a nice big generality. Listeners who want more can find it in some of today's "Pop" but more likely in one of today's non-Jazz, non-Classical, genres you don't consider Pop, but for all intents and purposes is Pop.

Also, even if harmony is not an important aspect to a modern Pop song - it doesn't automatically make it less artistically written, or less sophisticated, or less interesting, or without quality vocals, than older Pop. And if you desire to listen to the kind of music that has "quality vocals accompanied by interesting harmonies and embedded in interesting song structures" listen to lieder, or the Great American Songbook, or your favorite older Pop.

It is surprising to me when I read a post that is essentially saying "Music X does not have Attributes A,B, and C, *which I think define good music*, and so Music X is not good."


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Well, there's a nice big generality. Listeners who want more can find it in some of today's "Pop" but more likely in one of today's non-Jazz, non-Classical, genres you don't consider Pop, but for all intents and purposes is Pop.
> 
> Also, even if harmony is not an important aspect to a modern Pop song - it doesn't automatically make it less artistically written, or less sophisticated, or less interesting, or without quality vocals, than older Pop. And if you desire to listen to the kind of music that has "quality vocals accompanied by interesting harmonies and embedded in interesting song structures" listen to lieder, or the Great American Songbook, or your favorite older Pop.
> 
> It is surprising to me when I read a post that is essentially saying "Music X does not have Attributes A,B, and C, *which I think define good music*, and so Music X is not good."


Exactly, that hits it on the head. And that is why I repeatedly cite certain scholars and their books, where the question of what makes good music good is addressed directly and knowledgeably. For example, Charles Rosen: He was a concert pianist, lecturer and author whose views on classical music often were highly opinionated and more than a little controversial. But when he set about writing a book explaining why the music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is good, he made a profoundly wise decision, which was to first define and describe in detail what he called the "Classical Style". For it turns out that these three composers, who knew each other and were from more or less the same time, place and cultural context, all were masters of a specific style of music, a subset of a broader European tradition of circa 1600-1900.

For me (as for Rosen), if you want to rank or rate any music or musician (an exercise some here are far more interested in than I), it is essential first to define the genre or tradition they fall within. Musicians then can be ranked according to how well, or how originally or imaginatively, they exploit the potential of their genre, though there always will be a subjective element in such a ranking. If an entire genre is not your cup of tea, then there is no point in going through this ranking or rating exercise for any music within that genre.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Exactly, that hits it on the head. And that is why I repeatedly cite certain scholars and their books, where the question of what makes good music good is addressed directly and knowledgeably. For example, Charles Rosen: He was a concert pianist, lecturer and author whose views on classical music often were highly opinionated and more than a little controversial. But when he set about writing a book explaining why the music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is good, he made a profoundly wise decision, which was to first define and describe in detail what he called the "Classical Style". For it turns out that these three composers, who knew each other and were from more or less the same time, place and cultural context, all were masters of a specific style of music, a subset of a broader European tradition of circa 1600-1900.
> 
> For me (as for Rosen), if you want to rank or rate any music or musician (an exercise some here are far more interested in than I), it is essential first to define the genre or tradition they fall within. Musicians then can be ranked according to how well, or how originally or imaginatively, they exploit the potential of their genre, though there always will be a subjective element in such a ranking. If an entire genre is not your cup of tea, then there is no point in going through this ranking or rating exercise for any music within that genre.


Exactly. 

This thread can be summed up like this: "Today's Pop is different from Yesterday's Pop. I liked Yesterday's Pop, and don't like today's Pop, it is not as good."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have made a mistake in expressing myself.

Even if we make a case that contemporary pop music may be flawed, it does not mean that there is a problem with the esthetics. 

I do not know the answer to that question.

The last thing I want to do is insult the people who enjoy contemporary pop music. I apologize for doing so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

It's funny, I left the forum months back when it was plagued by server issues and basically unusable for me. I come back to find that TC has found a new server (I'm assuming), but this same thread/topic is still being discussed! As much as things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

I did note (after catching up with reading the last ~15-20 pages of the thread) that Beato and his videos/opinions were repeatedly referenced and discussed. I actually posted a video on page 1 that I think went mostly ignored that was a direct response to Beato from someone who is quite educated in both music theory and history himself. I'll repost it for those interested in a very intelligent (and amiable) critique of Beato and that general "older pop is better!" mentality:


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks. Enjoying listening to this chap make many of the points we made all by ourselves throughout the thread. One thing I noted around the 10:20 minute mark is the falsehood (Beato's) about major labels not taking risks so they made sure that there were producers doing the writing.

Isn't that what George Martin did for Parlophone/EMI back in 1963? No, not quite, he didn't do the writing, but the important role of producers is not new, and it seems Beato overstates the idea that producers now do the writing. Plainly, they don't.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Thanks. Enjoying listening to this chap make many of the points we made all by ourselves throughout the thread. One thing I noted around the 10:20 minute mark is the falsehood (Beato's) about major labels not taking risks so they made sure that there were producers doing the writing.
> 
> Isn't that what George Martin did for Parlophone/EMI back in 1963? No, not quite, he didn't do the writing, but the important role of producers is not new, and it seems Beato overstates the idea that producers now do the writing. Plainly, they don't.


Just imagine how much time and effort you all could've saved by watching this video back on page 1! 

The role of the producer has certainly grown larger with time, but I think that's as much to do with the technology as anything (learning production is an entire discipline unto itself); but I'm sure it didn't hurt that many great producers are also great songwriters. As a label, if you can hire a producer that can also collaborate with your artists to write better songs, then that's just a win-win. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with taking/not taking risks and, as that video shows, there ARE pop artists that have taken pretty big risks recently. Plus, it is worth noting that many current pop stars still write their own material... not that it should matter much given that throughout history it was rare for performing artists to also be the authors of whatever text they were setting to music. It was even a rarity in 20th century pop prior to Dylan and The Beatles normalized it because of their immense popularity.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's funny, I left the forum months back when it was plagued by server issues and basically unusable for me. I come back to find that TC has found a new server (I'm assuming), but this same thread/topic is still being discussed! As much as things change, the more they stay the same I guess.
> 
> I did note (after catching up with reading the last ~15-20 pages of the thread) that Beato and his videos/opinions were repeatedly referenced and discussed. I actually posted a video on page 1 that I think went mostly ignored that was a direct response to Beato from someone who is quite educated in both music theory and history himself. I'll repost it for those interested in a very intelligent (and amiable) critique of Beato and that general "older pop is better!" mentality:


I've watched this video when you first posted it and just thought that his arguments miss the point.

1.) The "sieve of time" is irrelevant to this topic. The thing is, that music today has become on average much less sophisticated, even if we adjust for the sieve of time: You can actually find the Number 1 hits of all decades on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_number-one_singles 
You can compare the hits of earlier decades to the latest ones, and in most cases the past years had much more sophisticated songs than today. Here we cannot argue with the sieve of time as these are number 1 singles that were actually popular back in the day.

2.) 12tone argues that there are still pop artists making amazing harmonies and then posts 3 "examples" which are not special at all. The Lil Nas X example is actually just a 2-chord loop which is EVEN simpler than the average pop song.

3.) Next argument: Interest in Indie music is growing and thus Top 40 music is not as representative anymore as it used to be. Maybe true, but I've actually listened to the Indie examples he mentioned and they are not much more sophisticated than current chart music (in some respects they may be even worse):




Some of these songs use different chord progressions than chart music, which is nice, but in the end its still mostly 4-chord loops without real change or surprise. Certainly a far cry from the music of past decades.
So the decline of Pop music may apply both to Top 40 as well as Indie music if his examples are anything to go by.

4.) Final argument: "Melodies must be simpler to leave room for the production". 
This is a common but very poor argument. I have yet to find a solid argument how interesting melodies and harmonies are harmful to production. Besides, a lot of hits nowadays really aren't that interesting in regards to production:




This song doesn't do anything crazy with production, yet it's just a simple diatonic 4-chord loop, as most pop songs these days. It's just one example, but from my experience songs like these are common. I cannot see a real correlation between complex production and simple harmonies/melodies.

Overall the arguments presented in this video hold very little water.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

They don't "miss" the point: they contradict the point(s). You just don't accept the evidence he puts forward. For example, the sieve of time is of course relevant, though the point is not as convincingly explained as it might be. It is that there was as much dross in the charts back in the 60s/70s etc as there is now, but the sieve of time means we tend only to remember the good stuff. So Beato is (and you are) comparing a _remembered _past with a current present: these two things are not comparable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*chipia - *let's say you are right, I don't think you are, but for the sake of discussion: 

What difference does it make?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

chipia said:


> I've watched this video when you first posted it and just thought that his arguments miss the point.
> 
> 1.) The "sieve of time" is irrelevant to this topic. The thing is, that music today has become on average much less sophisticated, even if we adjust for the sieve of time: You can actually find the Number 1 hits of all decades on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_number-one_singles
> You can compare the hits of earlier decades to the latest ones, and in most cases the past years had much more sophisticated songs than today. Here we cannot argue with the sieve of time as these are number 1 singles that were actually popular back in the day.
> ...


1. It's very much NOT irrelevant to this topic unless you are taking a very large, representative sample of all the music produced "back then" vs now and comparing them using some rigorous, quasi-scientific standard. Without that all you're doing is cherry-picking examples that serve your point, and there will be selection bias for the precise reason that video mentioned: you will remember the best tracks from the past and be comparing that with the average tracks of today. You selecting #1 hits, while not falling into the above type of selection bias, is rather pointless as at that point you're no longer talking about comparing pop music from the past and today, you're talking about a comparison of number 1 hits from the past and today, and you won't be able to generate a large enough sample size to know how representative it is.

Despite this, I did agree way back in this thread that my instinct/intuition (based on my own experience) is that pop music on average has gotten simpler, at least harmonically, but I'm not going to stake or bet anything significant on it.

2. I don't recall the examples he used for contemporary pop with interesting harmonies, but to me the more interesting point is just how easy it is to find (well-regarded) pop from the past that's every bit as simple, if not more so. The point being that harmonic complexity has never been a common feature of most successful pop. Even in the past the examples you (or anyone) can find would've been exceptions.

3. IIRC his point about indie music was in response to Beato's point about the artistic control of major labels not being all that relevant in an age where people have access to a near infinite amount of music, including all those indie and even purely home-grown artists. Both Eilish and Bieber started out on self-publishing platforms like YouTube, and regardless of the quality of their music it's clear they weren't the products of artistically controlling labels.

4. I wouldn't say that melodies MUST be simpler to make room for production, but in any work of art if you want to make one element more prominent or put the focus on it it's common sense that you reduce the prominence of what's around it in order to make it stand out by contrast. Production might not play a huge aspect in every modern pop song, but clearly it does in a lot. I posted an example many pages back of Lana Del Rey's Summertime Sadness, which I think is a clear example where the production is doing all the heavy lifting in terms of the song's aesthetics: 



Could you keep that production and utilize a much more elaborate melody or harmonic progression? Sure. Would it still be a good or as good a song? Perhaps, but it would probably come down to taste. What's certain is that it would be a different song. The simplicity of the melody and harmonies IMO very much help to make the aesthetic of the production a key focal point.

I'll also mention that pop isn't monolithic and it does a disservice to the entire discussion to treat it as such. Even the example you posted of the mxmtoon track is what I'd call indie folk, and folk music has ALWAYS had simplicity as a key element of its genre's tradition. Similarly, that Sam Smith track sounds like R&B, which is also typically pretty simple outside of the R&B artists that leaned more into their jazz roots. When I think of pop songs in which production plays a huge role I'm not thinking about the pop that's clearly rooted in genres with a tradition of simplicity: I'm thinking of stuff like this: 



Which is a track that even Beato did a "What Makes This Song Great" on in which he focused on Max Martin's production. It's also a track that I'd be willing to bet a sizable amount if I gave it to you (or anyone else) blind they'd utterly fail at identifying all the tracks involved in the production. It sounds much simpler than it is, and is a great example of how complexity exists on multiple levels in music, and production is one of those levels that most people are not good at really hearing.

I'll also mention that there's a lot more content in that video that you haven't addressed, including what I mention above about harmonic/melodic complexity not the being the only ways to measure a song's complexity. As much as we may agree that songs have decreased in harmonic complexity, I can't imagine that you (or anyone) would disagree that they've increased in the complexity of their productions.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I skimmed through the Ariana Grande song just to hear your example.

Yep, simple song. Stunning production. Minimal "percussion", with the rhythm being carried by melodic instruments. 

No guitars. Great vocal stacking. She's got a great voice, and is very camera friendly.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> 1. It's very much NOT irrelevant to this topic unless you are taking a very large, representative sample of all the music produced "back then" vs now and comparing them using some rigorous, quasi-scientific standard. Without that all you're doing is cherry-picking examples that serve your point, and there will be selection bias for the precise reason that video mentioned: you will remember the best tracks from the past and be comparing that with the average tracks of today. You selecting #1 hits, while not falling into the above type of selection bias, is rather pointless as at that point you're no longer talking about comparing pop music from the past and today, you're talking about a comparison of number 1 hits from the past and today, and you won't be able to generate a large enough sample size to know how representative it is.
> 
> Despite this, I did agree way back in this thread that my instinct/intuition (based on my own experience) is that pop music on average has gotten simpler, at least harmonically, but I'm not going to stake or bet anything significant on it.
> 
> ...


Your arguments are well reasoned and most, if not all, of your points have been made previously by more than one poster. They would carry some weight and effectively counter the premise posed in this thread to anyone with an open mind.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

pianozach said:


> I skimmed through the Ariana Grande song just to hear your example.
> 
> Yep, simple song. Stunning production. Minimal "percussion", with the rhythm being carried by melodic instruments.
> 
> No guitars. Great vocal stacking. She's got a great voice, and is very camera friendly.


She does have a great voice, though I think it's been ill-served in her studio music, which in itself has been ill-served by her collaborating with too many songwriters/producers that have pulled her in too many directions, not allowing her to find any coherent artistic voice. She's better live where she can stretch her voice more than what she tends to do on the records. I'm particularly fond of this track, which, though using less production magic, is a convincing pastiche of 50s doo-***: 




WARNING: Go easy on the volume before you hit play, it opens with annoying fan screaming.


----------



## Rika (May 4, 2018)

chipia said:


> [...]


You are correct, contrary to the people falsely claiming otherwise.

A few points for the laymen in this thread:

trying to disprove the correct statement in the title through exceptions to the rule proves only an inability to comprehend the concept of a trend
trying to disprove the correct statement in the title through semantic manipulation such as "what is 'pop music' exactly?" proves only an inability to solve the paradox of the heaps and a desire to derail the discussion
the many ad hominem against the OP are what we in Germany would call an "Armutszeugnis" and provide further evidence for a lack of actual arguments
trying to disprove the correct statement in the title through statements like "complexity is in no way better than simplicity" proves only an utter lack of understanding of even the basics of music and makes me wonder why laymen feel such a strong temptation to push uninformed opinions
As for OP, don't take discussions such as this one too seriously. Most people in online forums have little understanding of the topics they try to discuss. This goes, too, for people talking about classical music on a classical music forum, who overwhelmingly tend to be 'audience' - nothing else.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

But who says the statement in the title _is_ correct? Where is the evidence of a trend aside from that provided anecdotally by the OP?


----------



## Rika (May 4, 2018)

Forster said:


> But who says the statement in the title _is_ correct? Where is the evidence of a trend aside from that provided anecdotally by the OP?


I do, and given what I know in combination with not only the lack of arguments to the contrary from anyone in this thread but also the many irrational non-arguments, the validity of OP's statement is cemented further by it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Rika said:


> I do, and given what I know in combination with not only the lack of arguments to the contrary from anyone in this thread but also the many irrational non-arguments, the validity of OP's statement is cemented further by it.


It's always nice for someone with a grand total of 3(!) posts to appear in a forum and tell everyone they're wrong because they know so. And in response to this we are supposed to bow down to your alleged expertise? Well, two can play at that game: you're wrong because of what I know. There. That was easy, wasn't it? 

Also, perhaps you don't know how discussion works but the burden of proof is on the people making the claims, not the people attempting to refute it. We could simply sit back and say "prove it" and the inability of the OP (or yourself) to demonstrate your claim with anything remotely approaching objective, rigorous evidence could (and should) be met with the same skepticism that all such claims are met with. You have no reason (other than your say-so) that the OP's claim is sound in the first place.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Thanks. It crossed my mind to reply just as you have done, but having been round the block with the OP already on this point, I felt disinclined (on this occasion) to repeat the exercise for the benefit of a newcomer.


----------



## Rika (May 4, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> [...]





Forster said:


> [...]


I don't fault you for assuming I want to convince you since most people would. I don't consider either of you someone willing to be convinced though and hence don't care to.
My messages here are solely meant for those opposed to your opinions to let you know that you are indeed right and not to let this thread frustrate you too much, since it's merely the baseless opinions of a bunch of obviously uneducated people, as is the norm on the internet. There are plenty of people who agree with you and see through the nonsense of these people as well. They just don't generally waste their lives trying to gain self-worth over the number of posts they have or the time they spent on an internet forum and hence usually aren't here or else know better than to spin in circles with these peoples' non-arguments.
The fact that they would not only actively gloat about the time they wasted here in response to me but respond to my earlier accusation of using ad hominem by declaring a low number of posts on an internet forum as some sort of character flaw somehow impacting the discussion or validity of arguments only makes the situation all the more obvious.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

.


----------



## Rika (May 4, 2018)

To reiterate: yes, Chipia, you and anyone else noticing this very obvious trend are indeed correct. Some laymen falsely claim otherwise, a handful of which are in this thread and whose bizarre arguments can be as safely ignored as those of a flat earth conspiracy theorist, particularly after they have made as many and ignored as many good ones as in this thread. Ignoring them and moving on will save you a lot of time.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Closed temporarily for a cool down period.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please refrain from commenting negatively on other members. Instead, post on the content of the thread. 

The thread is now open


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Rika said:


> I don't fault you for assuming I want to convince you since most people would. I don't consider either of you someone willing to be convinced though and hence don't care to.


Quite the contrary: I'm always willing to be convinced by good evidence, but the evidence has been in incredibly short supply in this thread. In fact, I even said that, based on my own experience with pop music past-and-present, that my intuitions tell me that what the OP says probably has some validity at least if we restrict his definition to Top 40 pop. The only difference between him, you, and me is that I'm not willing to declare anything approaching certainty based on my limited experience and intuition, and cherry-picking examples doesn't (or shouldn't) impress anyone. Claims like the OP require a healthy, representative sample size and a solid methodology for analyses of those samples. There is no such thing that's been presented in this thread. 



Rika said:


> ...since it's merely the baseless opinions of a bunch of obviously uneducated people...


 Not sure anything more needs to be said.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Well folks, forget the death of pop harmony, how about the death of hard earned creativity....

I have seen the future of music. It’s scary, and utterly brilliant. - Music Business Worldwide


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Well folks, forget the death of pop harmony, how about the death of hard earned creativity....
> 
> I have seen the future of music. It’s scary, and utterly brilliant. - Music Business Worldwide


The article portrays the app's success much more like an advertisement than analysis. The idea that you could sing "a verse and a chorus into your phone, uploading this vocal to a platform, and that platform wrapping an_ entire_ _professional musical production_ around it, all in the style of your choosing" seems to be a rather rosy prediction. I don't really foresee any brilliant songs coming out of this. There will be no _*Bohemian Rhapsody*_, no *Carry On My Wayward Son*, no _*All You Need Is Love*_, no *Whip It.*


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Since the primary proponents appear to be movie production studios and other large providers of content, it seems that their hope is that this app will be a way for those entities to create content cheaply and quickly with little concern for creative excellence.

This has nothing to do with the most gifted and best songwriters and other music creators who will continue to do what that have always done.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

pianozach said:


> The article portrays the app's success much more like an advertisement than analysis. The idea that you could sing "a verse and a chorus into your phone, uploading this vocal to a platform, and that platform wrapping an_ entire_ _professional musical production_ around it, all in the style of your choosing" seems to be a rather rosy prediction. I don't really foresee any brilliant songs coming out of this. There will be no _*Bohemian Rhapsody*_, no *Carry On My Wayward Son*, no _*All You Need Is Love*_, no *Whip It.*


Goodbye Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan, or Bruce or even No Doubt..........


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Bwv 1080 said:


> can always cherrypick counterexamples, but harmony has declined as a feature of popular music since the GASB days, hard to argue otherwise. Of course, harmony is not the sole metric, and if you emphasize groove or production or other aspects naturally harmony becomes less important.


You might find this interesting. I agree with most of it. A long article goes on to explain what they're talking about.

“Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. Often there are more and sometimes the chord sequences even come close to endangering the songs' musical comprehensibility. There is, however, some kind of harmonic structure beneath these remarkable chord progressions, preventing this to happen. In the Beatles' songs each of the basic chords can be replaced by several other types of chords. Separated by minor third intervals, the tones of these stand-in chords show a diagonal relationship. This principle of diagonal substitution helps the listeners to understand the songs musically. Closer study of the early Beatles' songs reveals yet another point of support. In each song there is a tight relation between the clusters of these stand-in chords and the semantics of the lyrics. As the meaning of the words in a song does shift along two dimensions, the chords will shift along the same lines. This correlation between words and chords offers a flexible way to shift emotional meanings in conversational contexts.”



https://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/HEADER/editorial.shtml


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

The Beatles give Lil Ludi faith in masses, at least the Boomer masses. They knew from the get go that John, Paul and George (three working-class Scousers of Irish heritage) were game changers. Their first single, “Please, Please Me”, is a work of unparalleled pop genius. Only Roy Orbison and the Beach Boys from this era in the early 1960s are in the same stratosphere…


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Ludwig Schon said:


> The Beatles give Lil Ludi faith in masses, at least the Boomer masses. *They knew from the get go that John, Paul and George (three working-class Scousers of Irish heritage) were game changers.* Their first single, “Please, Please Me”, is a work of unparalleled pop genius. Only Roy Orbison and the Beach Boys from this era in the early 1960s are in the same stratosphere…


It wasn't my experience. Is it an exaggeration growing out of so much that's been written and hyped?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> You might find this interesting. I agree with most of it. A long article goes on to explain what they're talking about.
> 
> “Every typical *Beatles*' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. Often there are more and sometimes the chord sequences even come close to endangering the songs' musical comprehensibility. There is, however, some kind of harmonic structure beneath these remarkable chord progressions, preventing this to happen. In the Beatles' songs each of the basic chords can be replaced by several other types of chords. Separated by minor third intervals, the tones of these stand-in chords show a diagonal relationship. This principle of diagonal substitution helps the listeners to understand the songs musically. Closer study of the early Beatles' songs reveals yet another point of support. In each song there is a tight relation between the clusters of these stand-in chords and the semantics of the lyrics. As the meaning of the words in a song does shift along two dimensions, the chords will shift along the same lines. This correlation between words and chords offers a flexible way to shift emotional meanings in conversational contexts.”
> 
> ...


I find this interesting.

I've always thought that between the two of them (Lennon & McCartney) (and later, Harrison) that they were brilliant and intuitive songwriters. They did this without any formal training in music theory. 

And this only addresses "these remarkable chord progressions"; some of their songs are pure wackadoodle when it comes to *time signature* changes. They would often shift time signatures effortlessly midstream, and sometimes it's so seamless that you don't even notice. They were kings of "messing with time signatures".

*Happiness Is A Warm Gun* is an obvious example, although it's basically a medley of four song fragments. It flows from “4/4” to “5/5” to “9/8” to “10/8,” to name a few. 







There's *Across the Universe*, where the time signature changes depending on what's needed to make the lyrics fit. Still, it flows quite naturally.







One of the quirkiest might be *Good Morning Good Morning*, where the verses are apparently in an alternate universe:

3/4 | 5/4 | 2/4 
3/4 | 5/4 | 4/4
3/4 | 4/4 | 2/4
3/4 | 3/4







One of the most famous is *All You Need Is Love.* Again with the verses being somewhat off kilter, with the first two lines being either in 7/4 (or, perhaps, alternating 4/4 & 3/4 measures). This makes it the only song with a 7/4 meter to reach the *Top Ten* (*Money*, from *Pink Floyd*, only got to # 13)







And the wickedest of them all, from George Harrison in 1969, *Here Comes the Sun*, with the bridge being in several iterations of an 8/8 | 7/8 | 6/8 | 5/8 repeating pattern (or perhaps a 6/8 | 5/8 | 8/8 | 7/8, or maybe it's 6/8 | 5/8 | 4/4 | 7/8 . . . or perhaps you might be hearing it as a repeated pattern of 3/8 | 3/8 | 3/8 | 2/8 | 6/4 | 3/8).






Oddly enough, all but one of these examples are from John Lennon, although McCartney contributed his share of subtle oddball meter changes, like in *Martha My Dear*, with an added half measure in the middle of the verses, or a single insert of a couple of 3/8 bars before the end of the 2nd chorus of *Back In the USSR. *You might not even notice it in *Blackbird *- the verses start with in 3/4, continue with a few bars in 4/4, a single bar of 2/4, then back to 4/4


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I think some of the time signature changes they got from Burt Bacharach.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The author of the video in the thread had a very nice discussion with Ted Gioia, though the discussion is more about the influence on the state of the music industry, particularly streaming, on music. 







One thing I agree with Gioia on is poo-poohing the idea of inherently lower attention spans in children, something I've been hearing since about the 1990s. I think there may be _indirect_ reasons for this (children having less leisure time than prior generations, and more competition for that time) but it certainly isn't something that's just inherent to them.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> not that it should matter much given that throughout history it was rare for performing artists to also be the authors of whatever text they were setting to music. It was even a rarity in 20th century pop prior to Dylan and The Beatles normalized it because of their immense popularity.


one of the most astonishing facts i learned about the charts was the first woman to top the UK charts with a song she wrote herself was Kate Bush, all the way in 1978.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> one of the most astonishing facts i learned about the charts was the first woman to top the UK charts with a song she wrote herself was Kate Bush, all the way in 1978.


Kate Bush is a great artist. Very quirky, original, and creative, always trying to find ways to combine genuine artistry with pop craftsmanship. Her Hounds of Love had a first half full of hit singles (especially Running Up That Hill) while the second half was a conceptual suite. Even the track you refer to as the first #1 by a solo female artist (Wuthering Heights) is an utterly unique pop song. I'm particularly fond of her Aerial, which is a more recent release, especially moving tracks like A Coral Room:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Kate Bush is a great artist. Very quirky, original, and creative, always trying to find ways to combine genuine artistry with pop craftsmanship. Her Hounds of Love had a first half full of hit singles (especially Running Up That Hill) while the second half was a conceptual suite. Even the track you refer to as the first #1 by a solo female artist (Wuthering Heights) is an utterly unique pop song. I'm particularly fond of her Aerial, which is a more recent release, especially moving tracks like A Coral Room:


It continues to be an ongoing scandal that--unless the news has failed to reach me--the R&R Hall or Fame has yet to include Kate Bush. The HOF has a long history of idiocy, including the decades it took them to induct Jefferson Airplane and Rush. I read an explanation that the process was an insider's game, with certain labels held in higher V. lower esteem and, of course, the voting critics' preference for their favorite musical hobby horses and disregard of sales figures and units moved--something that cannot escape notice in the popular arts. Glad to see Journey finally in!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Kate Bush is a great artist. Very quirky, original, and creative, always trying to find ways to combine genuine artistry with pop craftsmanship. Her Hounds of Love had a first half full of hit singles (especially Running Up That Hill) while the second half was a conceptual suite. Even the track you refer to as the first #1 by a solo female artist (Wuthering Heights) is an utterly unique pop song. I'm particularly fond of her Aerial, which is a more recent release, especially moving tracks like A Coral Room:


Have you noticed the similarity in approach and sound between _Aerial_ and J. Starship _Blows against the Empire? _FWIW my favorite Kate Bush song, one of my Top Ten Ever, is _Night of the Swallow _from _The Dreaming_ album. Guaranteed to give me chills n thrills galore as she rides her musical roller coaster over and over.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Speaking of exceptionally talented woman artists remember a really enjoyable RYM list about weird UK chart hits, by the way (the UK charts are interesting where it's big enough in the music industry to be a Big Deal but small enough for weird stuff to happen) and - well, O Superman hitting #2 was certainly a moment in time.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

edit: found the list - though this is a bit off-topic. I do wonder if the relative safeness of the current streaming-based industry and listening habits makes these sort of weird hits less common.









Strangest hits to ever make the UK Top 40 - RYM/Sonemic


The history of the UK singles chart is, for me, one of the most interesting things basically ever. More than merely a record of consumerist activity, it's an extremely vivid, albeit messy depiction of pop history in Britain, marking countless changes in their many respects. And in our delightful...




rateyourmusic.com


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> It continues to be an ongoing scandal that--unless the news has failed to reach me--the R&R Hall or Fame has yet to include Kate Bush. The HOF has a long history of idiocy, including the decades it took them to induct Jefferson Airplane and Rush. I read an explanation that the process was an insider's game, with certain labels held in higher V. lower esteem and, of course, the voting critics' preference for their favorite musical hobby horses and disregard of sales figures and units moved--something that cannot escape notice in the popular arts. Glad to see Journey finally in!


I don't think anyone really takes the R&R HOF seriously. Like any other organizational entity they have their own biases and blind spots. Particularly egregious to me is their ignorance of the entire genre of heavy metal. It also took them forever to induct Black Sabbath and Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden still aren't in. One thing Maiden has in common with Kate Bush is that neither were ever really big in the USA compared to the rest of the world, so perhaps it's less surprising that they've been ignored by an American organization. 



Strange Magic said:


> Have you noticed the similarity in approach and sound between _Aerial_ and J. Starship _Blows against the Empire? _FWIW my favorite Kate Bush song, one of my Top Ten Ever, is _Night of the Swallow _from _The Dreaming_ album. Guaranteed to give me chills n thrills galore as she rides her musical roller coaster over and over.


Haven't heard Blows Against the Empire, but you have me curious now! Night of the Swallow is excellent, as is the entire The Dreaming album, which I know Bjork has cited as a huge influence. 

BTW, since we're talking about creative, unique female artists, have you (or anyone else here) heard/heard of Bent Knee? Fantastic art-rock band I recently discovered:


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Have you noticed the similarity in approach and sound between _Aerial_ and J. Starship _Blows against the Empire? _FWIW my favorite Kate Bush song, one of my Top Ten Ever, is _Night of the Swallow _from _The Dreaming_ album. Guaranteed to give me chills n thrills galore as she rides her musical roller coaster over and over.


BATE - haven't heard that for years. Im my mother's hippy household, it never seemed off the turntable, so although I was only 11, it's strongly associated with people getting stoned and "Yeah, man, cool!". Consequently, I can't quite get the connection with Kate Bush, from a different era, though listening to it now, the constant wash of background noodling is somewhat similar.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> BATE - haven't heard that for years. Im my mother's hippy household, it never seemed off the turntable, so although I was only 11, it's strongly associated with people getting stoned and "Yeah, man, cool!". Consequently, I can't quite get the connection with Kate Bush, from a different era, though listening to it now, the constant wash of background noodling is somewhat similar.


I hear a resemblance between _Have You Seen the Stars Tonight _from Blows and parts of Aerial--the long almost murmuring dronelike sections--the similarities are both musical and lyrical. At least to my ears. Both great albums!


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Pop harmony is dead.
Thank you for reading! 🖖


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

fbjim said:


> The author of the video in the thread had a very nice discussion with Ted Gioia, though the discussion is more about the influence on the state of the music industry, particularly streaming, on music.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the most interesting interviews I've seen so far. Great stuff... it helps me understand better why modern music sucks more and more every year.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Ted Gioia is a wonderful writer, I really recommend his newsletter/Substack for anyone interested in the music business.









The Honest Broker


A trustworthy guide to music, books, arts, & culture by critic and historian Ted Gioia. Click to read The Honest Broker, by Ted Gioia, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of readers.




tedgioia.substack.com





He expanded on his point on Tiktok in a post earlier.




> I’ll spell it out as simply as possible.
> 
> 
> Record labels have lost their ability to launch new careers.
> ...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Why focus only on harmony in Pop? The real question is, "Is Pop dead?" To which I would answer no.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Why focus only on harmony in Pop? The real question is, "Is Pop dead?" To which I would answer no.


The topic is about a quality in music. That's why people say 'pop is dead'. When something is bad or rotten, we say it's dead. We know it is still there, it smells worse and worse every day, it's decomposing... yes, it's there, but it's still dead.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

nikola said:


> The topic is about a quality in music. That's why people say 'pop is dead'. When something is bad or rotten, we say it's dead. We know it is still there, it smells worse and worse every day, it's decomposing... yes, it's there, but it's still dead.


Your opinion. I hear lots of great Pop. Your loss.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> The topic is about a quality in music. That's why people say 'pop is dead'. When something is bad or rotten, we say it's dead. We know it is still there, it smells worse and worse every day, it's decomposing... yes, it's there, but it's still dead.


Our parents used to say that about the music we listened to in the 1960 and 1970s.

Their parents said the same about the music from the 1950s.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Your opinion. I hear lots of great Pop. Your loss.


Your opinion.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Our parents used to say that about the music we listened to in the 1960 and 1970s.
> 
> Their parents said the same about the music from the 1950s.


I'm not a parent. Music is getting worse and there are many reasons for that. Every real musician and even music historians are aware of that.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nikola said:


> I'm not a parent. Music is getting worse and there are many reasons for that. Every real musician and even music historians are aware of that.


"_Every real musician"_

I don't have the time or the crayons to explain how using sweeping all-inclusive generalizations works _against_ you, not _for_ you.

*I think Mister Rogers would be disappointed with you.*


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I have to admit that I don't see the point of these kinds of threads, i.e. [some kind of music or composer] is "overrated" or "who's/what's the worst" or in this case, "the death of."

What is the fascination of focusing on what we "don't like" or think is "bad," or "the worst" or "has declined from some previous era?"

I don't get it.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

pop music has actually evolved, I think. modern pop is a music that is meant for small speakers. It is designed for ear buds and phones. If you notice, the overall mix is about space. chords and harmony take up too much space, so does a standard drum kit. 

so your "harmony" is in the overall mix and it is much sparser than you might expect.

pop music works with crafting the sounds, so its not so much what note is, but the tone and sound of the note. So simplicity is really part of the harmonic style

its hard to explain, but just google "Billie Eilish" and listen to any tune of hers.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

A few of my friends have jokingly said that the point of hyperpop was to sound good out of crap phone speakers, hah


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

fbjim said:


> A few of my friends have jokingly said that the point of hyperpop was to sound good out of crap phone speakers, hah


exactly.

That's why its all electronic drums and a synth bass putting a beat behind the vocals and then a synth just filling in the space 

its what's missing that helps out the small crappy speakers

I remember in music history class being told that every time there was a change in the medium of performance, there was a change in the public's conception of music. Of course they were explaining why the general public had a fascination with virtuoso worship in the mid 19th century, but the idea still holds


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

So, here's a link to the current UK Top 40. I can see the point about people listening on phones and earbuds, but I'm not clear that the production of _all _of these 40 compositions have been, in some way, neutered to suit the small scale listening experience.

Official Singles Chart Top 40 | Official Charts Company

Hasn't production of "pop" (assuming we're talking about Top 40) always had an impact on production to some extent, most notably the length of a song?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

also i think there will always be creativity, but i do think the actual industry is in a strange space right now and hasn't fully reckoned with the realities of streaming, especially for artists who aren't of the Ed Sheeran/Billie Eilish-levels of concert sales. 

hopefully things will change soon but it's not a good thing when "middle-class" performers suddenly can't make a living making records


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

during the pandemic lockdown, I remember talking with non-musician friends about how without anywhere to perform, I felt sorta lost. EVERYBODY said something like "why dont you live stream a concert?"

the answer is that NOBODY is going to watch a live stream of some nobody they never heard of

one good thing about the industry these days is that a regular schmoe like you and me can upload their work to the various streaming platforms and get paid for people downloading it. Only thing is that the rate per download is pretty small. I have a friend that's a songwriter and one of his videos got 6,000 views one month on YouTube. He even got a check from YouTube....for 3 cents


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Nate Miller said:


> pop music has actually evolved, I think. modern pop is a music that is meant for small speakers. It is designed for ear buds and phones.


When I was more active in the Nashville songwriting community, I was in the studio about every month doing a demo session. These sessions often were at the same studios that did master recordings, and so I observed that each studio had a set of cheap small speakers in order to hear how the mix would sound on a car audio system or small boombox.

The primary elements the engineer would make sure could be heard clearly were the vocal and the backbeat at very low volumes as well as high.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> When I was more active in the Nashville songwriting community, I was in the studio about every month doing a demo session. These sessions often were at the same studios that did master recordings, and so I observed that each studio had a set of cheap small speakers in order to hear how the mix would sound on a car audio system or small boombox.


I've seen that before, too. Not in Nashville though. You must have been a real deal stone cold player to be getting studio session time in that town


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Nate Miller said:


> during the pandemic lockdown, I remember talking with non-musician friends about how without anywhere to perform, I felt sorta lost. EVERYBODY said something like "why dont you live stream a concert?"
> 
> the answer is that NOBODY is going to watch a live stream of some nobody they never heard of
> 
> one good thing about the industry these days is that a regular schmoe like you and me can upload their work to the various streaming platforms and get paid for people downloading it. Only thing is that the rate per download is pretty small. I have a friend that's a songwriter and one of his videos got 6,000 views one month on YouTube. He even got a check from YouTube....for 3 cents


most of the "popular" stuff i've been listening to these days are from smaller artists, and i always make sure to actually buy their stuff outright from sites like Bandcamp if i like it, because yeah, they get miniscule money annually from streaming


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Nate Miller said:


> I've seen that before, too. Not in Nashville though. You must have been a real deal stone cold player to be getting studio session time in that town


I wasn't a player, but a songwriter. We hired the same guys, though.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

pianozach said:


> "_Every real musician"_
> 
> I don't have the time or the crayons to explain how using sweeping all-inclusive generalizations works _against_ you, not _for_ you.
> 
> *I think Mister Rogers would be disappointed with you.*


Every real musician can hear that music on pop charts is getting worse.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

nikola said:


> Every real musician can hear that music on pop charts is getting worse.


As a certified Geezer, I can tell you that the advent of R&B, Doo-W0p, and Rock n Roll--later evolving to Rock--was IMO a vast improvement over the Tin Pan Alley music of the previous (and my own) generation. I think I'll come back in 75 years or so, so that I can see/hear what has survived from the first decades of this century.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianozach said:


> Our parents used to say that about the music we listened to in the 1960 and 1970s.
> 
> Their parents said the same about the music from the 1950s.


Yes, but we aren't reaching some type of limit? 

But I suppose there's more tech coming from somewhere to enhance pop.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Nate Miller said:


> pop music has actually evolved, I think. modern pop is a music that is meant for small speakers. It is designed for ear buds and phones. If you notice, the overall mix is about space. chords and harmony take up too much space, so does a standard drum kit.
> 
> so your "harmony" is in the overall mix and it is much sparser than you might expect.
> 
> ...


Please see at #622, my question to you in response to this post. Thanks.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, but we aren't reaching some type of limit?
> 
> But I suppose there's more tech coming from somewhere to enhance pop.


I doubt that there's a limit. 

But the notion of what music will sound like in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years from now is entirely unknowable and unpredictable. 

But that doesn't stop Science Fiction films and TV shows from attempting to predict the future, although not many attempt predicting music of the future. Music in *Star Trek* tends to be throwback to popular earth culture, with one exception in ST:TNG where the holographic doctor is adored by the people of a planet that love his singing voice. They end up cloning him with some reprogramming so that his vocal range is much wider, giving us a glimpse of their music at the end. All the rest of the music seems to be Riker playing jazz, or crew members playing Classical from the 1800s.

*Star Wars* actually takes place "a long time ago", so any music, including the Cantina Band, is not "future", but distant past.

*Babylon 5 *did have a single song presented in a bar, but it, too, is very 1970s sounding grungish rock






*Babylon 5* pulled a fast one with a species of carrion eaters, the Pak'mara, about which little is known, other than they seem to be disgusting, and they look like a 6 foot tall cross between a lobster and a walrus. Captain Sheridan is lucky enough to experience "One moment of perfect beauty", when he hears a group of them singing. It's music most folks would be unfamiliar with, some chant. I'm think it's the Introitus, Puer natus nobis est, from the Christmas mass by Thomas Tallis. Very effective. They begin singing after the Captain and the Pak'mara representative exchange gifts at about 3:00 into this 5 minute clip.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, but we aren't reaching some type of limit?
> 
> But I suppose there's more tech coming from somewhere to enhance pop.


For the last 20 years or so, basically since the movie _O, Brother Where Art Thou _there has been a burst of acoustic, roots music that has emerged. This trend has evolved into a "neo-folk/old time" style which a number of young musicians have embraced. Rhiannon Giddens in only the most famous, but there are many others. 

In tandem with this trend has been a revival of traditional Bluegrass, as well as progressive Bluegrass, with acts like Molly Tuttle, Billy Strings, Sarah Jarosz, the Punch Brothers/Chris Thile, and Sierra Hull at the forefront of this branch of Roots music.

Pop, and its variants, will always be around and styles will change as the demographics of the Pop audience continually to change in wave after wave.

It's not just about technology, which accounts for only one segment of Pop.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> As a certified Geezer, I can tell you that the advent of R&B, Doo-W0p, and Rock n Roll--later evolving to Rock--was IMO a vast improvement over the Tin Pan Alley music of the previous (and my own) generation. I think I'll come back in 75 years or so, so that I can see/hear what has survived from the first decades of this century.


By Tin Pan Alley are you referring to Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers, etc.? Then we’ll have to agree to - vehemently - disagree. I grew up with rock, but these days, I’m as likely to listen to Porter as I am to Dylan. Especially Porter sung by Fitzgerald, Sinatra, etc.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> By Tin Pan Alley are you referring to Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers, etc.? Then we’ll have to agree to - vehemently - disagree. I grew up with rock, but these days, I’m as likely to listen to Porter as I am to Dylan. Especially Porter sung by Fitzgerald, Sinatra, etc.


It's amazing to me, but if a person grew up with pre-Beatles rock would they be a different listener (in the above sense) than someone who grew up with early-middle 70s rock (Zeppelin, The Who, Deep Purple)?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

jegreenwood said:


> By Tin Pan Alley are you referring to Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers, etc.? Then we’ll have to agree to - vehemently - disagree. I grew up with rock, but these days, I’m as likely to listen to Porter as I am to Dylan. Especially Porter sung by Fitzgerald, Sinatra, etc.


No. I was referring to Perry Como, Joni James, Kitty Kallen, Eddie Fisher, Dean Martin, The Four Aces, etc. on _ad infinitum. _Some fine songs but much dross surrounding the gold. Tin Pan Alley as a genre I differentiate from Broadway show songs and other classics like _Stardust, etc. _Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, et al were in a different category from the AM radio music of the early 1950s. _Begin the Beguine: _wonderful song!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> It's amazing to me, but if a person grew up with pre-Beatles rock would they be a different listener (in the above sense) than someone who grew up with early-middle 70s rock (Zeppelin, The Who, Deep Purple)?


They would have a larger stockpile or reservoir of remembered music to draw from. But their love of 70s Rock would be just as great (you heard it here first!) I go back to 1940s popular music and my inventory just keeps growing.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> They would have a larger stockpile or reservoir of remembered music to draw from. But their love of 70s Rock would be just as great (you heard it here first!) I go back to 1940s popular music and my inventory just keeps growing.


Well, for instance, I always avoided Sinatra until found out that my father-in-law (at the time) admired him (and he had no interest in other crooners or even that type of song). So I figured it was something to try. I began with a few songs, and then many more of his (Sinatra's) hits. They were all consistently memorable for his accuracy (according to the song sheets), holding the notes (durations), his tone and his control, and his small changes (improvements) to the expressiveness of the short forms. Very impressive, I didn’t know (the power of it), I was fascinated. I wouldn't say that I liked Sinatra numbers, until much later in my life, but I admired his musicianship immediately. 

So I'm guessing that young adults have the same feelings of just not ‘liking' Crosby and early Como and Dean Martin, because they just can't relate to them. It’s very subtle, but too smooth, too corny, repetitive and too very predictable, but maybe later in their lives those 'criticisms' are far less important.

But my question remains, why do we of different ages have such predictable tastes.. We seem limited to only an expected range of pop music, and not much outside of it until we’re much older. Pop music has such a hold on us, growing up. Pop music is designed (not consciously) to be this way, it’s irresistible. 

I don’t think this is the same among CM fans of different ages (I think they go from melodies to a few powerful works and then they want more length/flow and complexity). I think the pop/rock equivalent of that happened in the 60s 70s and then the 80s, but NOT among the individual fans. The groups and the artists of those decades did it, because they were successively older and older when they learned to play. The headliners of the 70s cut their teeth on early and mid 60s fare, while at the same time rebelling against the early and mid 50s, and so on.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I would say that young adults identify more readily with other slightly older young adults than they do with older adults who resemble, or are associated with their parents. If I'm a thirteen year old, why on earth would I want to listen to my father singing, or someone who looks like my father?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> No. I was referring to Perry Como, Joni James, Kitty Kallen, Eddie Fisher, Dean Martin, The Four Aces, etc. on _ad infinitum. _Some fine songs but much dross surrounding the gold. Tin Pan Alley as a genre I differentiate from Broadway show songs and other classics like _Stardust, etc. _Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, et al were in a different category from the AM radio music of the early 1950s. _Begin the Beguine: _wonderful song!













He objects to your characterization.


----------

