Why is modern pop music so terrible?

[NullPorch]

OK, your observations that pop music fraught with unoriginal composition and simple lyrics is hardly a modern phenomenon and whether these characteristics make the music "better" or "worse" is subjective.

I didn't say modern pop, but as I've mentioned in a previous post I do think it's a much more endemic problem now than it used to be. I understand your point, but part of academic art criticism is originality, innovation, or creativity.

 

[Double E]

part of academic art criticism is originality, innovation, or creativity.

Absolutely, art should be held to the standards of the medium though... and one could say that familiar chord structure and common lyrical themes are what defines popular music. Just like blues music is commonly kept to the traditional 12 bar pattern and the lyrics are often about hardship.

You can choose to believe that art appreciation is reserved only for those that have a high intellectual understanding of the basis of it's composition. There's plenty of art (and music) being made for those with this sort of discriminating taste. Not everyone, in fact most do not, nit-pick everything they hear or see.

Ultimately what makes a work of art successful is if it evokes an emotion or gut reaction that is not the result of deep analysis.

 

[NullPorch]

Absolutely, art should be held to the standards of the medium though... and one could say that familiar chord structure and common lyrical themes are what defines popular music. Just like blues music is commonly kept to the traditional 12 bar pattern and the lyrics are often about hardship.

You can choose to believe that art appreciation is reserved only for those that have a high intellectual understanding of the basis of it's composition. There's plenty of art (and music) being made for those with this sort of discriminating taste. Not everyone, in fact most do not, nit-pick everything they hear or see.

Ultimately what makes a work of art successful is if it evokes an emotion or gut reaction that is not the result of deep analysis.

That's another personal issue I take with it, and I acknowledge this is subjective, but I think it's a sad part of a universal decay of art appreciation within our society. It isn't just that people can't understand more nuanced art and music, but they don't want to. We aren't taught to (in the US anyway, and the US has an overwhelming influence on the bearing of international culture today) anymore.

And, as people have stated, a simplistic or minimalistic structure doesn't mean you can't still be creative or innovative with what you do. Language has rules and limits which can only be flexed so far for it to still make any sense but we don't accept writers telling the same stories as each other. Aspects may be similar, and it might take a similar form due to the laws of whatever language it was written in, but we generally expect a degree of originality or it's usually pretty universally panned as a unoriginal or a blatant rip-off.

 

[whatizitman]

Every generation has experienced expanding distribution of music. Before there was written music, it could only be passed in in-person. Then, music could be written by hand and passed along on paper. Then printing allowed wider distribution. Then we experienced a way to record the actual sound of music being played. Then radio showed up, so you didn't need a record player. Then the transistor radio, making it portable. Fast forward to web-based distribution making major labels impotent.

Each expansion allowed more people (audiences) to hear more music, requiring more people producing music to satisfy the demand.

x1000 times THIS.

I refuse to get into the "kids today" BS. Younger generations are always gonna be different than their parents. Last I checked that was a good thing.

My generation (and to some extent the couple of generations prior to me) had music as one our defining characteristics. At least is was for me.

My kids, not so much. They could take it or leave it.

I have guitars, bass, and drums available for them, anytime they want. Things I certainly didn't have readily available to me when I was their age. I expose to them to all forms of popular music, past and present. They really don't care. And there's not a lot I can do about it. It is what it is.

I may be in denial, but I can't see this as a parenting fail. Maybe their way of rebelling is to ignore what I think is cool? How is that any different my generation, or any before it?

So what do they like? Video games, youtube, memes, interactive media. That's what they, and their friends are all into, 24/7. Youtube, in particular, is like their MTV. And video games and modern animation is ALL ENCOMPASSING and INTERACTIVE. Their media is not separated. Music is just one part of the overall sensory experience for this generation. I believe their musical interests (or lack thereof, if you put it that way) reflects this. My son would rather make one of those mash-up "youtube poop" remix things of some meme than write a new song or play/record an instrument. My daughter would rather listen to that vocaloid stuff - I didn't even know it existed until she showed it to me. Not my thing musically. But I have to admit pretty cool from a CS perspective. It gave us a chance to talk about computer programming, which is something I encourage in them.

Times they are a changin'.

 

[TyBo]

I don't think the video here was primarily talking about "kids today". It was talking about several specific aspects of the music itself, relating to contemporary pop tunes. The extreme dynamic limiting applied to a great many recordings (the "loudness wars"), the autotune applied to most vocals today, which has become standard industry practice, the reliance on just a couple of lowest common denominator songwriters producing the majority of the generic "hits" we see, in tandem with a commercial landscape which severely limits the chances of a highly original song making it to the airwaves, and the accompanying massive financial "star maker machinery" which pushes the "hits" into our consciousness.

I think this guy is correct in assessing these various issues as being considerably more prominent now than they've generally been in the past. It's not like there was never any of the "star maker machinery" which Joni Mitchell referred to all those years ago, it's just that it's become more ubiquitous and more oppressive to creativity than ever. Look at the state of radio today, where almost all the stations are owned by just a few conglomerates, who mandate the programming from afar - again, a metastasized problem that's grown exponentially. There's a reason he doesn't compare Sgt. Pepper to some modern day equivalent, because there IS no modern day equivalent - there's no room for such originality in the radio formats today, things that are radical departures and experimental won't make it onto the airwaves.

I like some of today's music, and I think there is genuine talent out there. Bruno Mars is a real performer, and has catchy dance tunes. Jessie J has an impressive voice, can really belt it out and often has interesting phrasing. Lady Gaga is at least somewhat unconventional and musical (and also has a really good voice). But a Sgt. Pepper (or pick another if you like) equivalent today? There's no room for it.

 

[Big Hoss]

"One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity,…"

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[smtp4me]

If you dig a bit, I think you can find quality pop. I saw Bruno Mars a couple weeks ago. Not so much my kind of music, but 1) he's the real deal, actual talent and skill in songcraft, chops, and a stellar performer, and 2) his band is spectacular. Freakin' spectacular. But I agree, pop is mostly pretty awful. Good news is, listeners can be picky. I sure am.

Saw Bruno with my wife and daughter in Chicago about a month ago. I have the same opinion as you - not the type of music I typically listen to, but... you cannot deny the talent.

 

[whatizitman]

Because now we have computers that can make the worst karaoke singer sound like Sinatra and a rookie guitar player sound just as good as Slash...just to put it in some perspective.

Not entirely true. I can think of several examples of very accomplished musicians of yesteryear, who, by relying on newer technology to produce music for budgetary and convenience reasons, have produced recent tracks and albums that sound like @$$ compared to their largely analog recordings from the past. Meaning, computers do not really make it easier to sound good. Cheaper, maybe. But not necessarily easier.

What digitization has done has made it far easier and cheaper to distribute and share, particularly without degradation, which in turn makes the record label industry all but irrelevant for anything other than promotion.

Record labels have always followed what was "popular". But for a time had far more money to risk for artist development.

 

[whatizitman]

Fuddy-duddy nostalgia or not, I do remember being able to turn on MTV in the early to mid '80s and finding a greater variety of genuinely good stuff getting mainstream attention. You'd flip on the TV and see everything from Peter Gabriel to Sting to Eurythmics to The Fixx to Thomas Dolby to Prince to Kate Bush to...well, anyway. People who were very idiosyncratically themselves with their own singular vision and voice who hadn't had all their unique edges sanded off to make them fit neatly into a currently favored formula, as tends to happen a lot now. An awful lot of interchangeable pop divas singing over electronic instrumentation that's still sizzling with buzzy supersaw chords (how is that tired device even still a thing after all these years?). It's stuff that was going on in more underground club music a long time ago before finding its way into mainstream pop. Which is kind of what Madonna did on Ray of Light two decades ago (bringing underground trends into mainstream visibility), but at least that resulted in a genuinely good, landmark electronic pop album thanks to William Orbit.

Yes, that was the heyday of MTV for me. But like everything else its success created its own monster of tripe. If anything, it made music all the more reliant on visual to sell. Mick Jagger never would have made it in the 80s if he wasn't already ridiculously famous by that time. MTV became insipid once the hairbands and took over in the late 80s, became even more cringeworthy with gangsta/hip-hop in the 90, officially died when Real World aired, and spawned what would become the norm for TV production for the next two decades.

Interestingly, I recall what I call Top 40 radio in the 80s was not necessarily the same stuff on MTV. At least not in the earlier part of the decade, when it was still more artist driven. No. What I consider the genre of Top 40 (as opposed to the actual artists in the top 40 list) wasn't much different than it is now. Soulless, overly produced, disney diva pop, with a dance beat. I couldn't tell you who the artists were, but I can certainly recognize it when I hear top 40 nowadays. Some of that showed up on MTV in the early years, but I believe it tended to be voted off the island pretty quick.

 

[hrodbert696]

Objective art criticism is actually a really basic concept. I'm surprised no one's heard of it, apparently. Frankly no one's addressed my issues, in this regard, about compositional originality or complexity but has instead chosen to simply assume I just don't like the way it sounds. My personal taste in stylistic choices aside I can see that "pop" is compositionally stagnant and lyrically asinine. Regardless of if it's distorted guitars, clean and reverb drenched, or programmed samples on a MacBook there just isn't a certain degree of innovation or depth of thought to it. That's my criticism of "pop" across all genres. Where in there am I straying from objective evaluation?

In the use of the terms "stagnant" and "asinine," which have no objective referents.

More importantly, and somewhat distinct from the rest of the argument that's been unfolding here, is the overall frame of reference for passing judgments. It isn't just that "stagnant" is a subjective term. You can (and in subsequent posts, did) modify it to "unoriginal," in the sense that you can analyze word choices in lyrics or melodic compositions and determine whether those compositional elements have or have not been used before, and how often. That would give you an objective measure of "originality" in the pure sense of whether the composer created something new or recreated something that had been made before. That's fine, and yes that is objective.

However, it doesn't get over the subjectivity hurdle, in that there is still a subjective judgment being made in the assumption that such originality means better music. Creativity is not mere novelty - indeed it may not be novel at all, such as in found-object art or Warholesque pop art. Artistry can still excel even when it operates firmly within a well-worn tradition.

However, I don't have a problem with subjective judgments. Justin Bieber songs, as a rule, ARE asinine. That they are so is not objective, in that it's not something you can objectively measure. But their creative poverty is something that is quite striking to my subjective faculties of perception. Muskrat Love was asinine too. And here's the thing - Muskrat Love is compositionally more complex than a Bieber tune. It has a greater variety of chords and word choices in its lyrics, and I'm sure required more musical training to perform. I'm sure it's more original, in any objectively measurable sense, than "Baby." But it's still a dumb song.

All of which is to say, I'm fine with subjective judgments, and I believe that subjectivity can perceive truth. But I don't hold with asserting that anyone's subjective judgments are objective ones, or with blanket judgments being passed off as objective facts.

 

[whatizitman]

...I honestly don't see 14 year olds making it a point to go out to see/hear live bands. Your locale may differ...

Nope. Same here. I have to drag my kids. I fully expect them to purposely not see live bands once they are old enough to make that choice. That may be just my kiddos. But it doesn't seem much different in any of their friends. Even among the more musically-inclined ones. With few exceptions, the audiences I've seen around town for live shows has been ages 30+.

 

[whatizitman]

Modern pop sucks because we all become our parents.

Yeah. But, my parents didn't like popular music because it was rebellious, dirty, loud, etc... I don't like today's popular music 'cuz it's lame. I could only wish my kids were into something I considered taboo or dangerous. Oh well.

 

[Double E]

That's another personal issue I take with it, and I acknowledge this is subjective, but I think it's a sad part of a universal decay of art appreciation within our society. It isn't just that people can't understand more nuanced art and music, but they don't want to. We aren't taught to (in the US anyway, and the US has an overwhelming influence on the bearing of international culture today) anymore.

And, as people have stated, a simplistic or minimalistic structure doesn't mean you can't still be creative or innovative with what you do. Language has rules and limits which can only be flexed so far for it to still make any sense but we don't accept writers telling the same stories as each other. Aspects may be similar, and it might take a similar form due to the laws of whatever language it was written in, but we generally expect a degree of originality or it's usually pretty universally panned as a unoriginal or a blatant rip-off.

I disagree... I think there is creativity and innovation in current music. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not creative or innovative.

I am sorry but I just am not on board with the blanket statement that all of today's pop music is derivative and not innovative. I am just not quite jaded, pessimistic and cynical enough to throw in the towel.

 

[Axstar]

Nah, the real question is why can't baby boomers duck out gracefully, and instead insist on being social arbitrators right up to the point us millennials are bundling them into care homes? You've had your turn, now shut up and shove off. You should be systematically ashamed of some of the abject shite you put in the charts for weeks on end during the '60s and '70s.

 

[NullPorch]

I disagree... I think there is creativity and innovation in current music. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not creative or innovative.

I am sorry but I just am not on board with the blanket statement that all of today's pop music is derivative and not innovative. I am just not quite jaded, pessimistic and cynical enough to throw in the towel.

There is still plenty of creative, original, and artistically outstanding stuff being produced. It's just buried under the mass produced, artificial, corporate garbage. I guess that's fairly subjective, jaded, and cynical but as someone who's rather passionate about art (in general, not just music) I find it rather disheartening and frustrating.

I think Corey Taylor put it best when he said pop was offensive and insulting to real artists and musicians.

 

[hrodbert696]

There is still plenty of creative, original, and artistically outstanding stuff being produced. It's just buried under the mass produced, artificial, corporate garbage. I guess that's fairly subjective, jaded, and cynical but as someone who's rather passionate about art (in general, not just music) I find it rather disheartening and frustrating.

I think Corey Taylor put it best when he said pop was offensive and insulting to real artists and musicians.

To me it's more a question of what constitutes being "buried." You had gatekeepers in the 50s-80s period, record company execs and radio DJs, who made decisions about what would get promoted and played, and I do think you had more of a sense of patronage, that an ambitious exec would take a shine to a particular artist, nurture them along and push their songs to the radio guys, just because he wanted to and he was willing to take the risk on them. I think I remember reading that the members of U2 still lived in their parents' houses until at least their third record, maybe fourth. Billy Joel, or Prince, didn't take off till their third or fourth records either. That's largely gone and you no longer have the same kind of corporate risk-taking that could promote great music, that's true.

The thing is, though, that with the digital revolution, record companies and radio no longer "bury" anyone. In the days when those gatekeepers were almighty, if you didn't get on their radar, it was nearly impossible to find a viable audience at all. You were limited to playing local gigs, paying to press a record yourself and trying to get maybe the one or two local shops to sell it. Now, you may not get a big record deal or get your song on the radio - but it hardly matters. It's much easier to release and sell your own stuff. You don't get living-room name recognition or private jets, but you can tour and make some money and get along doing that independently. And if you're a listener who wants to find some cool new music that isn't Adele and Bieber, it's not hard to do at all. You just poke around Youtube and such and follow links and recommendations and it's all there.

 

[MonetBass]

If you stop and think about it, most popular music has been garbage for decades. Nothing has changed in that respect. Most of the interesting music won't ever be heard on the radio.

I've often speculated as our son grows up (he just turned 14) about how he will consume music, as that medium will be different from my experience, which was terrestrial radio and LPs/45s/cassettes/CDs bought in a brick and mortar store. Sure, he still likes to listen to Hits 1 on satellite radio in the car, but mostly he's hearing stuff from these sources:

1. YouTube
2. Movies
3. Other stations that mom & dad like such as 80s on 8, Classic Rewind and the like
4. My iPod on shuffle, which could be anything from symphonic to jazz to new wave to rock to musicals to new age

The interesting thing is that as he's gotten older, he's less interested in current pop and more interested in older music, mainly 80s pop/new wave. That echoes my experience growing up.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Sorry - can't agree with you @hrodbert696 - the powers that be have always looked to make money, and didn't give 2 rats' !@#$%^$! about talent. That's why when the producers of the Monkees were holding auditions, musical talent was not even listed in the release. That's why Elvis was promoted for his looks and was pushed to make lousy movies with lousy songs, rather than grow as a musician. That's why the Beatles' concerts were promoted more to get screaming female fans. That's why Paganini had a image as Satanic (not to mention Ozzie). That's why Menudo replaced members like they were oil filters in a cheap sedan. That's why the goal for Barry Gordy was to get his acts into Vegas.

It's no different today. Who gets the most exposure on TV, internet, etc.? The big names who can consistently sell product. That's why was U2 on Jimmy Fallon recently - as much a guest as a musical act. That's why the biggest names perform on the Super Bowl. Who determines that? The people who can make money.

From Joe's Bar and Grill to the biggest forums on earth, the deciding factor is not talent, it's whether you can bring in the dollar.

 

[hrodbert696]

Sorry - can't agree with you @hrodbert696 - the powers that be have always looked to make money, and didn't give 2 rats' !@#$%^$! about talent. That's why when the producers of the Monkees were holding auditions, musical talent was not even listed in the release. That's why Elvis was promoted for his looks and was pushed to make lousy movies with lousy songs, rather than grow as a musician. That's why the Beatles' concerts were promoted more to get screaming female fans. That's why Paganini had a image as a Satanic image (not to mention Ozzie). That's why Menudo replaced members like they were oil filters in a cheap sedan. That's why the goal for Barry Gordy was to get his acts into Vegas.

It's no different today. Who gets the most exposure on TV, internet, etc.? The big names who can consistently sell product. That's why was U2 on Jimmy Fallon recently - as much a guest as a musical act. That's why the biggest names perform on the Super Bowl. Who determines that? The people who can make money.

From Joe's Bar and Grill to the biggest forums on earth, the deciding factor is not talent, it's whether you can bring in the dollar.

I wasn't saying that the record companies were not motivated to make money or that their only concern was to promote talent. But examples like U2, Billy Joel and Prince came from a culture where the Record Company Grandee would have his pet projects that he believed in the potential of, that he would be willing to lose some money on over the short term (as long as he was making enough money elsewhere to cover it), in the expectation that they had the potential to pay off eventually. That wasn't ALL they were doing; they also promoted cheap crap to make a buck quick, and they dumped other very talented people (the Wooten Brothers come to mind) after a single album if it didn't bring instant profit. You can list examples of that happening endlessly.

But often when people talk about whatever artist from "back then" is so much better than "now," it's usually someone that the label kept backing while they developed, even if they weren't making much money yet. That doesn't really exist any more.

 

[TyBo]

Sorry - can't agree with you @hrodbert696 - the powers that be have always looked to make money, and didn't give 2 rats' !@#$%^$! about talent. That's why when the producers of the Monkees were holding auditions, musical talent was not even listed in the release. That's why Elvis was promoted for his looks and was pushed to make lousy movies with lousy songs, rather than grow as a musician. That's why the Beatles' concerts were promoted more to get screaming female fans. That's why Paganini had a image as a Satanic image (not to mention Ozzie). That's why Menudo replaced members like they were oil filters in a cheap sedan. That's why the goal for Barry Gordy was to get his acts into Vegas.

It's no different today. Who gets the most exposure on TV, internet, etc.? The big names who can consistently sell product. That's why was U2 on Jimmy Fallon recently - as much a guest as a musical act. That's why the biggest names perform on the Super Bowl. Who determines that? The people who can make money.

From Joe's Bar and Grill to the biggest forums on earth, the deciding factor is not talent, it's whether you can bring in the dollar.

Mmm ... but there are a number of dynamics that ARE different today, as the video points out, and as I elaborated above. It's not that these trends never existed. They did. It's that they're more pervasive and stifling today. Dynamic limiting, the "loudness wars", autotune, little commercial opportunity or outlet for innovative or radically different creativity, as the various media have become monolithic enterprises owned by just a handful of corporations (Clearchannel, anyone?) ... it's not that there's no talent around, it's that the landscape in which music now exists is unfriendly to things that are "different".

Internet outlets are of course available, and extremely useful in counteracting this, but that gets back to the necessity of searching for the music rather than it simply being present on the airwaves in our daily lives as had been the case in earlier years. So these differences are real, and have nothing to do with some imagined Millennial shortcomings. If I'd grown up in these musical surroundings, it's very possible I would have looked to other pursuits as well. Fortunately for me, I had the Beatles, and Hendrix, and the Airplane, and Aretha, and Motown, and Sinatra, and James Brown, and Santana, and the Allman Brothers, and ... well, you get the idea ...