# Was "popular" music more creative "back in the day"



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

By popular music, I don't mean non-classical music in general, but more specifically, music that was/is generally considered truly popular, like really "big name" music groups.

Before rock came into the picture, as I understand it, great Jazz artists like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane were considered the popular music scene. 

Then later on when Rock music came into the scene, the "popular music" were bands like the beatles, Jimi Hendrix, led zeppelin. These bands could be pretty "standard" and boring, but they were all very imaginative and creative and talented at their very best.

A decade or two ago, the music that was getting really popular started including things like Nsync, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, things like that. 

Now the popular music (again, popular meaning, the musicians that make it huge) is made up of guys like Justin Bieber, Kesha, Kanye West....

Now I am not saying that music is bad today, there are lots of great, creative and imaginative bands and musicians today, just as much as before. But to me, it seems like all the creativity and imagination has moved out of the "big name" musicians and gone exclusively into relatively more obscure musicians and bands. Whereas earlier, both obscure bands/musicians and ones that were considered very popular had a degree of creativity and experimentalism.

I know I am probably over-generalizing and over-simplifying things, my knowledge on non-classical genres is limited, and thus I am entirely open to criticism about my little hypothesis. But what do you think about what I am saying? Agree? Disagree?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Generalizations and abstractions ahead.

Absolutely, popular music is really in the trash heap now. But inevitably, I think underground music got more creative as pop got worse (I think starting in the mid-60s, when the hideous conformity and puritanism of that decade started to slip a bit in the independent creative world). Some decent things have slipped into the mainstream since then, but on a broader scale that divergence has only increased over time, and nowadays the stuff that's called pop is honestly on the same level of commercial jingles in terms of depth, soul and innovation.

Globalization. The information age has worked wonders for diversity, but has also replaced common values that are arguably worth preserving with artificial ones; this is why "Ke$ha" sells albums. Speaking just from an American perspective, I believe we've basically gone the way of Rome culturally, except we're still here, and the sane ones are frustrated.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

violadude said:


> By popular music, I don't mean non-classical music in general, but more specifically, music that was/is generally considered truly popular, like really "big name" music groups.
> 
> *Before rock came into the picture, as I understand it, great Jazz artists like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane were considered the popular music scene. *
> 
> ...


Jazz slowly stopped being part of the mainstream starting in the mid-40's after it moved from swing to be-bop and later hard bop. Guys like Miles, Monk, Coltrane and such had a following, but they were not the type of 'popular' artists that made the charts - at least not on a regular basis. Swing big bands however had been hugely popular - especially the less jazzy, less interesting and more poppy white version from the likes of Glenn Miller and the Dorsey brothers. Much of the pre-Elvis popular music (and to a large degree continuing up until the Beatles) came from hit-musicals composed by people like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, the Gershwin brothers, Rodgers and Hart (later Hammerstein), etc as sung by crooners or pop/jazz (usually referred to as 'traditional pop' these days) singers like Bing Crosby, Peggy Lee, Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Nat 'King' Cole and so on. These singers also sung songs that didn't necessarily come from musicals, but were (to varying degrees) similar in style.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> Jazz slowly stopped being part of the mainstream starting in the mid-40's after it moved from swing to be-bop and later hard bop. Guys like Miles, Monk, Coltrane and such had a following, but they were not the type of 'popular' artists that made the charts - at least not on a regular basis. Swing big bands however had been hugely popular - especially the less jazzy, less interesting and more poppy white version from the likes of Glenn Miller and the Dorsey brothers. Much of the pre-Elvis popular music (and to a large degree continuing up until the Beatles) came from hit-musicals composed by people like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, the Gershwin brothers, Rodgers and Hart (later Hammerstein), etc as sung by crooners or pop/jazz (usually referred to as 'traditional pop' these days) singers like Bing Crosby, Peggy Lee, Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Nat 'King' Cole and so on. These singers also sung songs that didn't necessarily come from musicals, but were (to varying degrees) similar in style.


Thanks for the info! Didn't know much of that.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

violadude said:


> Then later on when Rock music came into the scene, the "popular music" were bands like the beatles, Jimi Hendrix, led zeppelin. These bands could be pretty "standard" and boring, but they were all very imaginative and creative and talented at their very best.


I'm not sure the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin were considered pop music, at least post-1964. Back then, adults were listening to Perry Como and Steve and Eydie Gormet, and pop artists were groups like Herman's Hermits, Freddie and the Dreamers, and the Beach Boys. Those were the ones you listened to in front of your parents. Deep Purple, Big Brother and the Holding Company with Janis Joplin, and groups like that were actively challenging the older generation and didn't end up on A.M. radio playlists outside of a few hit singles, at least the way I remember it.

No, my generation of the '60s had its share of embarrassing pop music. (Remember Yummie, Yummie, Yummie, I Got Love in my Tummy? Ouch!)


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

In short, my opinion is yes.

Mozart used to the the "popular music" a few hundred years ago. 
Lady Gaga is now the "popular music" which I believe speaks for itself.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Iforgotmypassword said:


> In short, my opinion is yes.
> 
> Mozart used to the the "popular music" a few hundred years ago.
> Lady Gaga is now the "popular music" which I believe speaks for itself.


No, the popular music was folk music back then, not Mozart.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm not sure the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin were considered pop music, at least post-1964. Back then, adults were listening to Perry Como and Steve and Eydie Gormet, and pop artists were groups like Herman's Hermits, Freddie and the Dreamers, and the Beach Boys. Those were the ones you listened to in front of your parents. Deep Purple, Big Brother and the Holding Company with Janis Joplin, and groups like that were actively challenging the older generation and didn't end up on A.M. radio playlists outside of a few hit singles, at least the way I remember it.
> 
> No, my generation of the '60s had its share of embarrassing pop music. (Remember Yummie, Yummie, Yummie, I Got Love in my Tummy? Ouch!)


Really? I always was under the impression that the Beatles and guys like that were an immediate huge success.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> No, the popular music was folk music back then, not Mozart.


I hesitated before posting this for this very reason and I concede that you may be absolutely right. However Mozart was still (to my limited knowledge) a very well know and revered composer in that day, which constitutes popularity... thus making it pop music. Plus, if you listen to a lot of the more shallow Mozart it just sounds poppy... but that may just be my problem.

I honestly realize that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think that my argument still holds some validity


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Iforgotmypassword said:


> I hesitated before posting this for this very reason and I concede that you may be absolutely right. However Mozart was still (to my limited knowledge) a very well know and revered composer in that day, which constitutes popularity... thus making it pop music. Plus, if you listen to a lot of the more shallow Mozart it just sounds poppy... but that may just be my problem.
> 
> I honestly realize that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think that my argument still holds some validity


Mozart was actually considered a pretty difficult and Avant-garde composer in his day.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Ok, so I love pop...but there is a lot of **** pop out there nowadays...in answer to the OP,...yes, pop was more creative back in the day...but that can take nothing away from the fact that song itself is as good today as it ever was, if not better. Pop allows for so many different variables that are not associated with classical or opera in any way...and it is true, if the performer is true...and nowadays, there are more and more player/singers out there that are spilling their guts and hearts out onto the stage and public and that is essentially what any human wants....not repetition and costumes and and bunch of fluff...just straight up good, good, good without any doubt that what one is experiencing is excellent. That's why I love the performers I do.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

violadude said:


> Really? I always was under the impression that the Beatles and guys like that were an immediate huge success.


That's because they started out as basically pop musicians (I Wanna Hold your Hand, She Loves You). When they got a following, John told Brian Epstein he wanted to do more of their own music, and they branched out. _Meet the Beatles_ was a pop album. I'm not sure you can classify _Sergeant Pepper_ and _Abbey Road_ as "pop" albums - pop being a genre - even though they were hugely successful.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mozart used to the the "popular music" a few hundred years ago. 
Lady Gaga is now the "popular music" which I believe speaks for itself.

No, the popular music was folk music back then, not Mozart.

There was no "popular music" back then... not at least in the way that we think of it. The ability to transmit and market music to a large audiences... across local, regional, even national borders did not exist. The "folk" musicians playing in a pub and at the festivals in Prague would be unknown in Vienna, Paris, London, etc... The closest thing to "popular music" prior to the technology of sound recording would have been published favorites that would have been known through scores and played in countless parlors among those able to read and play music. Popular music involved a shift toward creating and producing and marketing music toward the larger mass public after the perfection of sound recording when it became obvious that this audience now represented the far greater and far more lucrative market.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> That's because they started out as basically pop musicians (I Wanna Hold your Hand, She Loves You). When they got a following, John told Brian Epstein he wanted to do more of their own music, and they branched out. _Meet the Beatles_ was a pop album. I'm not sure you can classify _Sergeant Pepper_ and _Abbey Road_ as "pop" albums - pop being a genre - even though they were hugely successful.


Ya but I'm not talking about the "pop genre." I'm talking in general about musicians who were considered very popular in their day.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> By popular music, I don't mean non-classical music in general, but more specifically, music that was/is generally considered truly popular, like really "big name" music groups.
> 
> Before rock came into the picture, as I understand it, great Jazz artists like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane were considered the popular music scene.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. Let's hope someone with some talent can revive the music industry.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

violadude said:


> Ya but I'm not talking about the "pop genre." I'm talking in general about musicians who were considered very popular in their day.


I think back then the genre was so new that musicians could branch out more, they could find a label which would support them, and their fanbase would follow them. I'm not sure with the mainstream music industry as it is today that singers/musicians with contracts in that area have that same flexibility.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

TrazomGangflow said:


> I couldn't agree more. Let's hope someone with some talent can revive the music industry.


I remember when the 1980s rolled around rock was in a slump. Even Fleetwood Mac's Tusk didn't lift it out of the doldrums, and Time Magazine was asking for a rock messiah. Then Michael Jackson popped up out of nowhere with Thriller. It was like a shot in the arm. Maybe that will happen again.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I remember when the 1980s rolled around rock was in a slump. Even Fleetwood Mac's Tusk didn't lift it out of the doldrums, and Time Magazine was asking for a rock messiah. Then Michael Jackson popped up out of nowhere with Thriller. It was like a shot in the arm. Maybe that will happen again.


Michael Jackson was one of those musicians that I respect greatly for their talent, but not a huge fan of the actual music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

TrazomGangflow said:


> Let's hope someone with some talent can revive the music industry.


It ain't gonna happen. Music is no longer part of the industry. It's pure business these days. The talented people are in the margins working independently. This was spearheaded as far back as the 1980s when Frank Zappa split with the industry and went independent.

Just be thankful there were music loving people in the industry from the 30s through the 70s, or we wouldn't have this great recorded legacy today.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

starthrower said:


> It ain't gonna happen. Music is no longer part of the industry. It's pure business these days. The talented people are in the margins working independently. This was spearheaded as far back as the 1980s when Frank Zappa split with the industry and went independent.
> 
> Just be thankful there were music loving people in the industry from the 30s through the 70s, or we wouldn't have this great recorded legacy today.


Plus, even if there would come someone with the same potential for reaching a mass audience like a Michael Jackson it wouldn't translate into anywhere near the same sales figures because only a small number of people buys music these days.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

lol just perfect.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This guy gets my vote for most under appreciated creative talent in pop/rock for the past 20 years.
This is the opening tune from his latest CD/DVD Bakin' @ The Potato.






And here's something on the mellow/melodic side from his 2009 CD Scambot.






Mike Keneally is from San Diego. He came to worldwide prominence with Frank Zappa's band in 1988. He's since produced about a dozen solo albums including the modern orchestral work, The Universe Will Provide.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> This guy gets my vote for most under appreciated creative talent in pop/rock for the past 20 years.
> This is the opening tune from his latest CD/DVD Bakin' @ The Potato.
> 
> 
> ...


Nice, I liked it!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^
Cool! Hey dude, if you like that Thinking Plague CD In This Life, check out an album called Hungers Teeth by 5uu's. Some really great stuff featuring Bob Drake, Dave Kerman, among others.
http://www.amazon.com/Hungers-Teeth...=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1322361225&sr=1-4


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Here's the lead off track. Great title, eh?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Here's the lead off track. Great title, eh?


Ya man! that's right up my alley. I haven't heard of 5uu's, I'll have to check them out some more.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hunger's Teeth, and Crisis In Clay are band efforts w/ Bob Drake. Abandonship, and Regarding Purgatories are really Dave Kerman solo efforts. The albums with Bob Drake are more song oriented, but with killer musicianship. Purgatories is the only one I really don't care for.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

violadude said:


> lol just perfect.


'Girl, I'm a sexually attractive male - that makes me a good artist. ' Haha


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

This one is a little more explicit,  but I can't help posting it... I think its still relevant to this thread...:lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> No, the popular music was folk music back then, not Mozart.


In Vienna there was Schrammel-musik, a kind of popular chamber music played in taverns, cafes, etc that found it's way into the music of the Classical era and Romantic era "serious" composers. Of course, late c19th came the waltz craze and also operetta, so there were many other things. A lot of it did travel, music was not global it is true, but musicians travelled across Europe since time immemorial. So popular music spread, there was not this hermenutic seal around a city state or kingdom or country or whatever. In a way I agree with stlukes, there was popular music, but it was different than today. But like today's popular music, it interacted heavily with "serious" music, just listen to the minuets of Haydn's symphonies, or any dance-like tunes/sections of those guy's string quartets, symphonies, concertos, etc. Haydn even incorporated things like drones from bagpipes into his music. He was one of the first guys to use this "collage" effect, of the banal and sublime, way before guys like Mahler and Ives made it more commonplace.



starthrower said:


> It ain't gonna happen. Music is no longer part of the industry. It's pure business these days ...


It could be said also for some aspects of the way classical music has become more recently. Eg. with our flagship orchestras here playing almost no post-1945 music, except rehash things like Arvo Part and Rautavaara. Do you guys see a paralell with what's happening in classical? The smaller groups here, a lot of them semi-professional, amateur are doing more interesting (read BETTER) repertoire than the flagships with wads of cash from corporate sponsors. That's not only in newer music but in more interesting older repertoire as well. Eg. you ain't gonna hear things like Gounod's, Weber's and Bizet's symphonies with the major orchestras here live (or even on disc), but you can hear them with the smaller and lesser funded community grassroots groups, or those connected to universities, etc. No prizes for guessing which one I support, I have basic intelligence, I'm not a moron who always wants to hear Beethoven's 5th and Tchaik's first concerto year in year out.

& the controversial thing, but true, is the rot set in decades ago, with certain conductors who refused to conduct anything or much outside the warhorse repertoire. Or a shred of new music. You all probably know the people I mean, but I won't name names as these guys are certain people's idols, I don't want to be showered with mudballs...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Anyway, after those musings or rants...

I do listen to a fair bit of non-classical radio here & I do like the work, or some of the work, of many current artists or groups. Eg. Kanye West, the Gorillaz, Lykke Li, & a lot of our own home grown Aussie talent. I can't name most of them, I know a lot of their music, but not at expert level. Even older rockers like Nick Cave and John Paul Young are getting some coverage still and doing some quite interesting things (esp. the former, he is a good poet, but I find his music to dark for my tastes).

I can't compare it much with say the Beatles or The Stones, but I must say that due to overexposure of the Beatles, I have grown to hate them. Esp. with that big anniversary box set of over 10 years ago or so, it lead to them being played on air too much, it was overkill. I just hate their stuff now, even though they were admittedly good. So there's that factor there as well, the earworm factor, also happens with classical.

Generally I think there's some good things going on now, some interesting things, but as I said (same as in the classical music industry) there will always be those who put the mighty dollar above their art or craft. It's just human nature I suppose and this corporate mentality, of the men in suits and bean-counters controlling every aspect of the artistic process, does not help one bit...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> It could be said also for some aspects of the way classical music has become more recently. Eg. with our flagship orchestras here playing almost no post-1945 music, except rehash things like Arvo Part and Rautavaara. Do you guys see a paralell with what's happening in classical? The smaller groups here, a lot of them semi-professional, amateur are doing more interesting (read BETTER) repertoire than the flagships with wads of cash from corporate sponsors. That's not only in newer music but in more interesting older repertoire as well. Eg. you ain't gonna hear things like Gounod's, Weber's and Bizet's symphonies with the major orchestras here live (or even on disc), but you can hear them with the smaller and lesser funded community grassroots groups, or those connected to universities, etc. No prizes for guessing which one I support, I have basic intelligence, I'm not a moron who always wants to hear Beethoven's 5th and Tchaik's first concerto year in year out.
> 
> & the controversial thing, but true, is the rot set in decades ago, with certain conductors who refused to conduct anything or much outside the warhorse repertoire. Or a shred of new music. You all probably know the people I mean, but I won't name names as these guys are certain people's idols, I don't want to be showered with mudballs...


Great parallel Sid! I didn't think about that, but it's pretty true.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's more interesting music being played at libraries, and art galleries/museums than in the concert hall. I like to seek out these little publicized chamber music concerts around town.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well *violadude* I like to think laterally, but it's always a risk to derail threads. But I think there's little difference with the commercialisation of different genres/types/styles of music, be it rock, classical, jazz, etc. I do like some more commercial things, eg. once in a while things like Andre Rieu or Mantovani & others of yesteryear, but it has to be of a certain quality, not just pap.

& I also agree with* starthrower*, the smaller venues and groups offer so much more than the mainstream/flagship ones. I hate to use the term "selling out" but that's kind of where mainstream classical groups with huge wads of corporate cash have headed, just pleasing the jurassic calcified conservative listeners, who only like the warhorses, and maybe a splash of modern rehash like Arvo Part as a five minute diversion. I think these people have rubbish attitude, basically...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

violadude said:


> By popular music, I don't mean non-classical music in general, but more specifically, music that was/is generally considered truly popular, like really "big name" music groups.
> 
> Before rock came into the picture, as I understand it, great Jazz artists like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane were considered the popular music scene.
> 
> ...


What about folks like Andre Rieu? You could argue he is popularising classical music, but classical music is not just a few Strauss tunes (equivalent to saying liking a few opera arias doesn't mean you enjoy opera as a genre). Whatever sells - this is the principle now.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

There is probably not much change in creativity if folk music that can be performed easily and as seen in the form of commercial, recorded music today is around three or so minutes in length, uses only a few chords, etc. This is normal if such music is popular because it is easy to appreciate.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

If you consider popular "Indie" music to be popular music, then no, there is no decline. Much of Indie rock is just as competent lyrically and harmonically as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones ever were, and many have exceeded them in many ways, mostly by exploring in new directions. Washed Out, Beirut, Beach House, Fleet Foxes, Animal Collective, and a few others I consider better than most if not all of what came out of the 60s and 70s. The names I just mentioned have not exactly topped the Billboard 200 or get much radio playtime, but they are in no way "obscure".

Really popular music were almost always not very innovative. The pop bands we know from the 60s are over-represented by exceptionally creative bands because only they lasted the test of time.

Here's a hit from 1961. It's in my pop playlist.






I think most people would prefer Lady Gaga.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

this is the reason why i LOVE pop:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Philip said:


> this is the reason why i LOVE pop:


Point missed


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> Point missed


 Sex appeal. The lust and obscenity.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> Point missed


You see, pop music is like fast food, it is designed to be enjoyable, but too much of it may cause a heart attack. My point is...

Back in the day, pop was more like folk, that indicates how society has changed as a whole and not necessarily its individual constituents.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

violadude said:


> Point missed


Yeah. Not sure in what way it can be seen as seductive. Not only she cannot sing, she writhes like an earthworm.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> this is the reason why i LOVE pop:


In the name of Louis XVI's old cough medicine, French women arouse me to no end!

Screw Bach and his quadruple fugues! Alizée forever!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Point missed


Ohh!! I get it now...I didn't think it was seductive at first...then I muted the video and it was much sexier!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Philip said:


> You see, pop music is like fast food, it is designed to be enjoyable, but too much of it may cause a heart attack. My point is...
> 
> Back in the day, pop was more like folk, that indicates how society has changed as a whole and not necessarily its individual constituents.


In other words, what was once popular had substance. It fed your soul, so to speak.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> In other words, what was once popular had substance. It fed your soul, so to speak.


Yes, more precisely, pop used to address real day-to-day feelings and situations, in some rare instances it still does it without an overbearing commercial aspect (eg. indie music). Only I'm afraid that this marketable side of music is an artifact of a capitalist society driven by communication technology.

If no means of mass-distribution existed, pop would be folk.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

starthrower said:


> In other words, what was once popular had substance. It fed your soul, so to speak.


Lots of pop superstars have substance. Eminem for instance. His lyrics address a whole slew of social and personal issues.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Lots of pop superstars have substance. Eminem for instance. His lyrics address a whole slew of social and personal issues.


Maybe so, but there's nothing of musical interest there for me.


----------



## FutureDays (Dec 21, 2011)

I think that the late 60's/early 70's constituted a sort of golden era, for underground or "progressive" rock and for the more blues influenced groups. Sadly, the music industry has taken complete control and the days when a band could record an album without interference are over. There's still good music out there I'm sure, but it's not to be found in the mainstream or with any form of rock music I think. Anyway, I expect things to continue on as they are or get worse; you can't really expect much else when music is made under capitalist relations of production.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Most people don't have much experience with the full history of popular music. There was a huge explosion of creativity in the late teens brought on by recording. When the depression hit, people stopped buying records and radio took it to the next level. It continued to flower until the beginning of WW2 when shellac shortages and the recording ban slowed progress to a crawl. Jazz split into two... The populists moved into jump blues and the intellectuals moved into Be Bop. Ultimately, jump blues merged with country music to create rock n roll, which pushed Jazz to the back burner, appreciated more by those in the know than the average Joe. All this time, country and big band were maintaining their niche. Big Band evolved into pop vocals, and everything went well with tremendous diversity until the Beatles came along and swept the floor. All other forms of music except rock faded away, and rock split into a million sub genres of similar flavors. Then money got tight and labels began manufacturing their artists to order. That drove the stake in the heart of a century of creativity in popular music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There was a very brief envelope of time, 60's, pretty much over by the mid-seventies, when AM radio was playing FIVE MINUTE LONG NARRATIVE DYLAN SONGS, and the likes.

Companies like Elektra were giving their artists free creative reign, not asking them to recreate their last hit.

They was room for musicians like Tim Buckley (father of Jeff B.) / Richard and Mimi Farina / The Electric Light Orchestra (John MacLaughlan) / Laura Nero, etc. A lot of this was part of the 'folk-rock' genre, but genres were not so obsessed over by the public in general. The era of course included Jefferson Airplane, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Jeff Beck, Procul Harum, John Mayall (British bluesman), and many many others.

The openness, the free and enthusiastic investigation of making something new, taking things in new directions, was across the board in the arts of the era. Classical music was 'escaping' the rigid band-wagon fashion of serialism, ex. 1950's, and Lukas Foss and many another contemporary classical musician were working with ensembles in improvisation, partially written and partially improvised music, graphic scores (Carla Bley in Jazz), and incorporating electronics and 'pop' elements, including other non-traditional instruments, into their works.

The economy was flush, the society at large felt 'secure' and was therefore more ready and comfortable to try something 'new.' When a state's economy is not flush (this is nothing new) the public are far less adventurous in their choice of entertainments, popular or 'fine' arts, their lives filled with a general nervousness, unease and worry. That is when the public goes for the tried, old, and _familiar_ -- it is like a security blanket or a comfort food. Pop music being what it is by nature, there must be 'new' to fuel the industry and keep it afloat: right now that new is nothing innovative: it is not 'news.'

I think there is very little room or opportunity today for something as wildly abstract as Freddy Mercury-Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody," to widely capture the majority of the population, as it once did. When it was released, it became another top of the charts song played IN ITS ENTIRETY on AM radio stations.

Alternative pop, the even more alternative genres of 'electroacoustic' or "Postclassical" music, are now most readily propagated by the internet - perhaps the widest and most 'truthful' polling device yet in existence. The larger mainstream pop music producers and companies are not, in the current climate, inclined to the adventurous.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I never thought of Bohemian Rhapsody as being abstract. You're making some questionable assumptions about economics and musical choices.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Mozart was actually considered a pretty difficult and Avant-garde composer in his day.


Time for a little clarification of 'pop' as in 'populist,' ie purposefully simple in order to be direct, vs. 'classical' - written with the expectation of intellectual listening capacity. ? ;-)


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

I think that pop music was more creative in the past. I can't imagine it was much less creative than, say, Ke$ha lol. Nowadays, it's really become little more than a massive money-making scheme, in my opinion. If you look at all of the pop music from the past 10 or so years...almost all of it has exactly the same general structure, length, sound, feel, subject matter, etc. The music industry has found a template for music that sells big, and they're going to keep using it as long as it's making them all that money. It has almost become comical nowadays with all of these new artists with next to no talent becoming overnight superstars.

Looking back to the 60s/70s and the bands you mentioned like the Beatles...their music actually had a bit of substance and innovation to it. I really don't even like the Beatles much personally, but I do admit that they were very talented and did put out some good music. And even if some of the people like Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, etc. weren't considered popular music, they were still very popular back then so it's kind of the same thing. Nowadays, I can't think of very many popular groups at all that are nearly as creative or innovative as some of those older groups were.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Philip said:


> this is the reason why i LOVE pop:


Oh, my goodness...who is this delicious and heavenly creature? :angel: I love pop, too!


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I had a flatmate who had a young lover who was into some electronic drivel. He thought I was a terrible old fogey who didn't like "rock" music or "loud" music. We all then went to a Queen tribute concert. He was stunned to discover that I knew the music, the lyrics and that I liked it LOUD.  There's good and bad music in every range.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Moira said:


> I had a flatmate who had a young lover who was into some electronic drivel. He thought I was a terrible old fogey who didn't like "rock" music or "loud" music. We all then went to a Queen tribute concert. He was stunned to discover that I knew the music, the lyrics and that I liked it LOUD.  There's good and bad music in every range.


Sorry to break this to you, but Queen are for old fogeys too.

As for the original question, the answer is no.

Throughout history people have always thought the past was a Golden Age. In the time of Pythagoras and Plato, people believed there was ancient long lost music of the gods that had become obscured over time, and the music they created was but a pale imitation of the legendary music of the spheres. Then by the Renaissance and the dominance of polyphony, people believed the simple and pure music of the Greeks was truer to the real purpose of music than the polyphonic compositions of their own time, which they saw as being merely entertainment. This trend flows throughout human history, the belief the past was superior to the present. It is a lie.

In my opinion, there is more great 'popular' music being created today than at any point in time, it's just that with the downfall of the record labels, radio stations and other hegemonic institutions as financial dictators, the core mainstream is much more homogenised as no one wants to take a chance, they'll always play the safe bet. That is why the internet is crucial to the propagation (and suvival) of creative popular music.


----------



## helpmeplslol (Feb 1, 2014)

A very easy yes for me.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't if you can call this pop music but it is really really good. 
Esperanza Spalding 




Janelle Monae


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

There's good and terrible music. Regrettably, the latter is much more profitable.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

kv466 said:


> Oh, my goodness...who is this delicious and heavenly creature? :angel: I love pop, too!


Yes, I am sure it was her 'talent' that got her a record deal.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Serge Gainsbourg and James Brown are two of the few POP artist I listen to. They certainly don't get enough credit for their accomplishments.


----------



## Katie (Dec 13, 2013)

If all this splits largely among generational lines, then it's no more than the latest installment of an age-old argument. 

However, I'm knocking on 30 (which, not that long ago, seemed the threshold of geriatricity) and, aside from a few abberations (like Joe Walsh's latest and every Meat Puppet release), the vast majority of my nonclassical collection is considered positively archaic by my friends as it ends with post-punk stuff like the The Smiths n REM circa mid 80s (I am NOT allowed to provide music for road trips (but only when not driving :devil: )).

BUT, my formative influences were different: it took my parents little time to decide that my early teen behaviour deserved an institutional response, so I was shipped off to prep school by 13 and indoctrinated in a culture where the Grateful Dead and vintage catalogues of the Stones, Zep, CSNY, Dylan, and basically the whole litany of Woostock headliners ruled, along with punk - as opposed to the post-grunge and emergent hip/hop and rap my public school friends were passing through. 

Music is art, and has art ever been an apt target for objective analysis? Is it wrong that different people bond with different music based on a litany of variable and highly personal cultural influences? I think you insult otherwise intelligent, independent listeners if you judge their musical allegiances to be vacuous of critical merit simply because it lacks personal appeal or doesn't meet a battery of subjective criteria...a previous poster was correct: likely there is a greater volume of more diverse music being performed and promulgated (through unconventional channels (youtube, personal websites, itunes)) than ever before. Go find it. Quit judging. P.S.: Personally, I too think most of today's pop n rock is garbage :lol: ....oh well, no one ever said that an honest, accountable life is easy or without contradiction.../K


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Katie said:


> ....oh well, no one ever said that an honest, accountable life is easy or without contradiction.../K


"An honest, accountable life" is realistically impossible for a human being to lead. We're corrupt since the day we're brought forth screaming into the world. But that's neither here nor there.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Since the OP wrote "popular" in quotation marks, I would say a primary difference between today and "back in the day," is where the outer bounds of the popular were set. In the early 1970s, in addition to the big favorites (Zeppelin, Hendrix, Tull, etc.), Zappa, King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Soft Machine, Ravi Shankar, the first incarnation of Weather Report, Herbie Hancock, Oregon, and Mahavishnu Orchestra, to cite just a few, were all competing for the same young, mass audience and performing in the same venues, often, some of the finest acoustic halls in the U.S. and Europe. I recently read an account of a concert in 1974 in which Procol Harum was the main act and the warm up band was a new one called Steele-Eye Span. The latter took the stage in period peasant garb and began to sing _a capella_ responsorial hymns in Latin from the 16th century and centuries old English folk songs. They blew Procol Harum off the stage. That audiences were flexible enough (or chemically altered enough? ;-) to accept and respond ecstatically to something 180° away from what they expected is important. It wasn't just the bands that defied boundaries. It was the audience as well.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Yes, I am sure it was her 'talent' that got her a record deal.


Yup! It just wasn't musical talent. Musically talented females don't usually have to perform in their underwear to gain an audience. To grasp the absurdity of the situation, imagine Alison Krauss, Anne Sophie Mutter or Joni Mitchell performing in lingerie.

Or to turn the tables, your favorite male musician performing in a jock strap.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

starthrower said:


> Yup! It just wasn't musical talent. Musically talented females don't usually have to perform in their underwear to gain an audience. To grasp the absurdity of the situation, imagine Alison Krauss, Anne Sophie Mutter or Joni Mitchell performing in lingerie.
> 
> Or to turn the tables, your favorite male musician performing in a jock strap.


*No sir, I don't like it.*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Iforgotmypassword said:


> In short, my opinion is yes.
> 
> Mozart used to the the "popular music" a few hundred years ago.
> Lady Gaga is now the "popular music" which I believe speaks for itself.


Nothing like perpetuating a totally incorrect myth... sigh.

Mozart's was the relatively popular classical music of his time, not the popular music of his time. 
Popular music was then, like now, much musically simpler songs and dance music.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Music reflects the time in which it was written especially popular music
There will always be 'simple' popular tunes that appeal to a mass market written entirely for that purpose e.g. Stock Aitkin and Waterman stuff from the eighties.
This type of music dates rapidly and thankfully fades into the mists of time. Contrast that with popular music that touches on social and political issues e.g Bob Dylan which I think may be listened to in another 100 years because it can stand the test of time


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Serge Gainsbourg and James Brown are two of the few POP artist I listen to. They certainly don't get enough credit for their accomplishments.


Are you kidding? "I Got You (I Feel Good)" is like the second most annoying song of all time.



PetrB said:


> Nothing like perpetuating a totally incorrect myth... sigh.
> 
> Mozart was the relatively popular classical music, not pop.
> Popular music was then, like now, much musically simpler songs and dance music.


But wasn't the OP talking about popular music instead of pop?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

FleshRobot said:


> Are you kidding? "I Got You (I Feel Good)" is like the second most annoying song of all time.
> 
> But wasn't the OP talking about popular music instead of pop?


Since _dude_ (the OP) is sort of pseudo-reminiscing about what to him is the dim past, I can claim that 'pop' and 'popular' were the same thing. He mentioned Duke Ellington as a example, and it's true he had some recordings in that category. Coltrane did not, he stayed jazz. Before rock came in in the '50s, pop was about 97% ballads, a lot of it with orchestral backing (think Perry Como, Bing Crosby, Sinatra). We are talking crooners here, and not jazz crooners either. There was no 'country-pop', country still required 'country instrument' backing.

:guitar: (only this guy is playing too fast)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

FleshRobot said:


> But wasn't the OP talking about popular music instead of pop?


Exactly. Then someone dropped in that constantly popping up weed mistaken myth that "Mozart was the popular music of his day and now we have Justin Bieber," silliness.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Nothing like perpetuating a totally incorrect myth... sigh.
> 
> Mozart's was the relatively popular classical music of his time, not the popular music of his time.
> Popular music was then, like now, much musically simpler songs and dance music.


Wait a minute, everyone wasn't jamming Mozart at their local taverns?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Wait a minute, everyone wasn't jamming Mozart at their local taverns?


Actually, they were. Mozart's great tunes were played by musicians in the streets (thus the term "gassenhauer") and other musicians were busy cranking out variations and arrangements, the equivalent of today's cover songs. I think it's a mistake to try to create a parallel between "classical versus popular" in Mozart's day and the situation that exists for us.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Wait a minute, everyone wasn't jamming Mozart at their local taverns?


Shocking, I know, and nearly as traumatizing as finding out there is not a Santa Claus, but there 'tis. There may be an anonymous twelve-step support group for overcoming that disappointment / trauma, since there is a 12-step recovery group for just about everything else. They probably share a hall with the 12-step support group for those traumatized by modern and contemporary classical music and its yucky dissonance


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Actually, they were. Mozart's great tunes were played by musicians in the streets (thus the term "gassenhauer") and other musicians were busy cranking out variations and arrangements, the equivalent of today's cover songs. I think it's a mistake to try to create a parallel between "classical versus popular" in Mozart's day and the situation that exists for us.


Actually, the were -- and they weren't. It is not like Mozart was the only tunesmith for what was played and sung on the streets and in the taverns, which seems to be what _some people_ would love to have you think


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I wonder how many would call those who use popular idioms but experimenting with it and without being all that popular. "Popular avantgarde"?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm not sure the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin were considered pop music, at least post-1964. Back then, adults were listening to Perry Como and Steve and Eydie Gormet, and pop artists were groups like Herman's Hermits, Freddie and the Dreamers, and the Beach Boys. Those were the ones you listened to in front of your parents. Deep Purple, Big Brother and the Holding Company with Janis Joplin, and groups like that were actively challenging the older generation and didn't end up on A.M. radio playlists outside of a few hit singles, at least the way I remember it.
> 
> No, my generation of the '60s had its share of embarrassing pop music. (Remember Yummie, Yummie, Yummie, I Got Love in my Tummy? Ouch!)


Too funny. As if there is any significant musical difference between that 'challenging' music and the pop stuff you denigrate. It is all musical fast food...three minute songs, two verses, refrain, third verse, guitar solo, refrain, etc., etc. Simple harmonic and metric structures. Just popular music. Comparing different styles of popular music or different rock groups/singers is like comparing McDonald's to Burger King to Wendy's. etc......


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> That's because they started out as basically pop musicians (I Wanna Hold your Hand, She Loves You). When they got a following, John told Brian Epstein he wanted to do more of their own music, and they branched out. _Meet the Beatles_ was a pop album. I'm not sure you can classify _Sergeant Pepper_ and _Abbey Road_ as "pop" albums - pop being a genre - even though they were hugely successful.


What do you mean John told Epstein 'he wanted to do more of their own music, and they branched out'??
'I Wanna Hold your Hand' and 'She Loves You' *was their own music.*


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> No, the popular music was folk music back then, not Mozart.


Exactly. Always so amusing to hear when people think that Mozart or Beethoven created 'popular music'. As you state, folk music was the popular music of that time.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Haydn man said:


> Music reflects the time in which it was written especially popular music
> There will always be 'simple' popular tunes that appeal to a mass market written entirely for that purpose e.g. Stock Aitkin and Waterman stuff from the eighties.
> This type of music dates rapidly and thankfully fades into the mists of time. Contrast that with popular music that touches on social and political issues e.g Bob Dylan which I think may be listened to in another 100 years because it can stand the test of time


One hundred years from now people may KNOW of Bob Dylan (to an extent) but an EXTREMELY small percentage of people, if any, will actually be listening to his music...or any popular music from 20th century or early 21st century for that matter.

Very few products of popular culture transcend their own time, their own time defined by the lifespan of the people who grew up with the particular product. True, there are people in their 20s and 30s who like 60s and 70s music--usually because their parents grew up with it, love it and play it and they (the children) grow to love it--but with each passing generation, the music fades out and is eventually of no interest to anyone.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Can I suggest the following for a long term perspective on this. Its a great read and the music this has introduced me to continues to amaze.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Popular-Music-Donald-Clarke/dp/0312142005


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Thread question: Was "popular" music more creative "back in the day"?

Darn right! And the sun was warmer, the breezes more refreshing, food tasted better, and the girls were ever so much more desirable. The world was full of promise and the future was absolutely wide open. Funny how things change as the years pass...


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I couldn't make a strong argument for this but living through both times I think that most of this is true, even if the "science" may be flawed. The creativity left.


----------

