Why is modern pop music so terrible?

[bass12]

Grace Jones is an outlier in many ways, trend setter in others. Her persona was well known in an early 80s context, but not much beyond that. She adopted a style and presence that was shocking yet timely. One might argue that the modern pop-tarts that rely on shock value and being train wrecks before becoming "serious" artists (Gaga, Cyrus, Spears, Perry, etc) owe everything to Jones. However her music is more or less a dead end in pop culture. I remember her videos, because of the visuals, but can't remember a single chorus or song title.
That says a lot about "pop" music. The package is often as important as the music, if not more so.

If we want to tear "pop" apart into its bits, I think the follow elements are fairly ubiquitous:
Short: most pop songs are 2:30 to 3:30 minutes long. Old LPs from the 60s had very short songs on them.
Simple construction: Because of the time limits, keeping things to a verse-chorus-verse-chorus format is the way to go. If you want an intro our outro, base it on the riff used for the verse or chorus. If you can eek out 4 minutes, an emotional crescendo just after a second chorus is good.
Keep it 4\4 & major: Somewhere online there is a video of a guy with a keyboard playing 20 pop hits using the same time and chord progression. People like to know where to tap their feet or snap their fingers. Familiarity in song structure goes a long way. Minor keys\chords are OK for love songs and power ballads. Anything below 90bpm can be boring, anything above 120bpm may be too aggressive.
Everyone row in the same direction: In 60s and 70s it was true that there was a lot more instrumentation happening, but often these were working together in an orchestrated way. Solos, counter point, or complex syncopation detract from the basic melody and harmony of the song.
Keep the arrangement light: Most instruments in pop are kept fairly light in the arrangement. Thick layers of distorted guitars are for rock, not pop.
The vocalist is king\queen: Pop is really all about the vocals. The band is there to be a backdrop and that is it.
Don't forget about appearances: Pop is as much about presence than anything. Because it is tied to pop culture, and humans are largely visual animals, we want a look to go with our music. Elvis' pompadour, the Beatles black suits, Michael Jackson's red zipper jacket, Lady Gaga's meat dress, Katy Perry's foam spraying bra, etc.
Remember the kids: Pop is largely for young audiences. In the past that meant keeping the lyrics and subject material of hit songs pretty light weight. Changes in cultural memes have changed and our youth are now subject to some of the worst humanity has to offer thanks to the internet. Tongue in cheek sexual innuendo has given away to blatant near-p0rn level lyrics, but even some things are still off the table (see every Cannibal Corpse song ever.)

Not every major radio hit will adhere to these, but one nine out of ten probably will.

To be fair, most of you'd you've laid out regarding song format/construction can be equally applied to soca, reggae, country and, I'm sure, a host of other popular styles. I disagree that pop is as much about visual image/presence as it is the music. Some of it probably is (some of it would certainly fail to have the desired impact without the image), but there is lots of pop where I believe the image to be secondary. Sting is one of many examples that come to mind. Regardless, image has always been tied to music performance and music sales. There's no question that the birth of MTV heralded a new era of image consciousness in pop stars, but that doesn't mean that from there on all pop relied on image and sound in equal measures - though I would agree that it did push things into a more visual realm where more bubblegum and young teen-oriented acts were concerned. Your mention of "young audiences" raises what is, I think, a very important point regarding marketing and who a lot of current pop is marketed towards. In the 50s, pop ("rock and roll") was being marketed primarily to teenagers. Today's cash cow is the "tween" market (an age group that was largely ignored by advertisers prior to the 90s). Given the influence of this market it makes total sense that so much contemporary pop would seem as if it was being made for people just out of their Pablum stage.

 

[Josh Kneisel]

Matter of opinion, of course, but your list doesn't match mine in depth or breadth. And music radio is far from dead - it just no longer yields the quality and variety of acts like the ones I listed.

And as far as any arguments about those of my generation wearing rose-colored glasses and forgetting the crappy stuff - refer to post #84.

I don't know anyone under 40 who listens to music radio . It's Pandora, spotify, youtube etc or talk radio or podcasts generally

 

[FilterFunk]

I don't know anyone under 40 who listens to music radio . It's Pandora, spotify, youtube etc or talk radio or podcasts generally

Fair enough.

 

[bass12]

Well given the fact that I spent close to 7 years engaged to a woman with severe bipolar 2 disorder with psychotic episodes and myself have ptsd I can pretty much put that part of your argument to rest. It is a standard easy deflection that I am used to.

As for my "misunderstanding" and trying to pass my opinion off as fact. I keep saying he wasn't a genius. Given how small the actual genius population is it is a safe assumption that he wasn't. Also given his repeated assertions that he wasn't a genius I think that it probably should be a consensus thing. Kind of like the whole "Quit following me!" thing from Life of Brian.

Now how is this for criticism. Cobain threw up so many red flags about his mental illness it is almost surprising he didn't get the help he needed. But just like it did for too many before him the industry profited off it. His mental illness fueled his work and he made a lot of money for a lot of people. I guess that they figured if he killed himself it would spike record sales and that would be one less person to give a percentage to. (I can't believe I'm actually explaining this but that was a dark joke about Corporate America not making light of mental illness or suicide ).

And on top of all of that. I think what I have called the false popular narrative did as much to kill him as his illness did. He stated he was human and in pain. You said he was a genius and tried to make him something he wasn't. You said he changed everything. Yet he was still roped into a system that was exploitative. He said he needed help. You laughed and bought another album.

In general I am not sorry for my opinions. I have based them on repeated observation of facts.

I will concede that Cobains death is one of those turning point moments. Like any other major negative event like a school shooting etc. But I don't buy into the hype. I don't believe he was a genius, I don't believe his band killed hair metal, I don't believe he brought about any real true change.

Let's back off on the emotions a bit and really look at these arguments logically.

I've beaten the not a genius thing to death. I will let that one die.

Killing hair metal. Hair metal committed suicide on a combination of booze, cocaine and hair spray. All of the excesses it had killed it. It had ran its course and became a fat bloated corpse.

If you want to debate that then I ask you who or what killed grunge? Let's look at Nirvana contemporaries.

Alice in Chains went AWOL until Layne Staley died. Now is essentially touring as a nostalgia act with a new singer. Kind of like Quiet Riot (I cringed at that joke too).

Soundgarden with the exception of Chris Cornell (who in my opinion was a genius, great singer, sophisticated songwriter, plus he looked cool as hell) and Matt Cameron disappeared. Ben Sheppard was actually homeless before the reunion.

At least Pearl Jam is still active.

Even that stage of alternative rock had a strong image component. It's just that the elements emphasized in the image changed. I honestly believe people would've gotten tired of grunge and moved away from it eventually, the same way they moved away from psychedelic, glam, arena rock, punk, new wave, and hair metal before it.

The situation in the mainstream major label system is the same as it always has been. The contracts and structures of deals are the same. The same entourage or "Team" of people is needed for a record deal and they all taking the same amount.

So if you really look at it Nirvana didn't change anything. Irregardless if you are a fan or not put your fandom aside. Rather than look at it in terms of one band which is a really narrow, naive and shallow way of looking at it.

Read a couple of books on the bubusiness. Ask yourself how much of this has changed because of Nirvana or Grunge in general? Watch a couple of documentaries. Rather than say "Nirvana or Grunge killed hair metal". Sit and watch "The Decline of Western Civilization: The Metal Years, " which I believe came out in 89 and ask yourself could this possibly sustain itself?

It is kind of like checking advertising claims.

C/S,
Rev J

I have a whole stack of Rolling Stone magazines from the mid-90s that I sometimes sift through, even though 90% of the acts covered during those years did nothing for me. It's interesting to reflect on the changes that occurred from the early-to-mid 90s. As I see it, Nirvana was the face (for many) of a change that was taking place anyway. And it wasn't just in the harder rock scene. There was a general backlash against much of what had gone on in the 80s on both a visual and sonic/production level. A lot of people seemed concerned with the idea of "authenticity" and getting back to some roots of some sort. You had the "grunge" thing on the rock side, the "neo-soul movement" on the R&B side, you had Lilith Fair and the MTV Unplugged trend emphasizing acoustic possibilities and you had gangstas and gangsta wannabes professing to be "keeping it real" on the hip-hop side. Man, those Rolling Stones were full of horrible ads...

 

[Alkali Ike]

Interesting thread. I find most new music that gains traction to be completely boring and annoying. But I like this a lot. Makes me want to explore The National.

Someone tell me: Is the song any good? Is the band any good?

 

[bass12]

Interesting thread. I find most new music that gains traction to be completely boring and annoying. But I like this a lot. Makes me want to explore The National.

Someone tell me: Is the song any good? Is the band any good?

Saw them live a few years ago. Not really my thing but I thought they were good.

 

[socialleper]

Today's cash cow is the "tween" market

Tweens are a touch younger than the typical pop market, but teenagers have always been the focus of pop. Watch old footage of the Ed Sullivan show. The screaming crowds were hormonal teen aged girls.
The only reason the shift is to tweens is because parents hare more indulgent to younger children and let them have buying power.
If Bruno Mars and Beyonce only had fans in the tweens, they wouldn't be able to perform at the Super Bowl. Pop acts to day still have followings that last into their 20s. My wife still likes Mars and Justin Timberlake.

I disagree that pop is as much about visual image/presence as it is the music.

Visual elements started before MTV. Again, I point to famous performances on television by Elvis, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Beatles, etc. What they wore and how they projected themselves defined who they were in the minds of the audience. Even the suits and slick dance moves of doo wop and Motown acts were a carefully crafted image. Big Band musicians wore matching suits. Classical musicians dress up, even today.
Now look at the reverse. When we think of complex, artistically challenging music (jazz, blues, classical, metal) we don't really think of highly attractive people. Dirty, gritty, eccentric, and lets say homely appearances are more common, and actually increase the appeal of the act.
If you doubt this assertion, fine, but you would have a hard time naming one top 10 pop act that is dumpy, has bad skin, and is fugly.

 

[monsterthompson]

When we think of complex, artistically challenging music (jazz, blues, classical, metal) we don't really think of highly attractive people. Dirty, gritty, eccentric, and lets say homely appearances are more common, and actually increase the appeal of the act.

Worked for Devin

 

[bikeplate]

Yep, sucks. But pop music has been sucky ever since I can remember. The Cowsills? Donny and Marie? Shall I continue? Captain and Tenille? .......

 

[bass12]

Tweens are a touch younger than the typical pop market, but teenagers have always been the focus of pop. Watch old footage of the Ed Sullivan show. The screaming crowds were hormonal teen aged girls.
The only reason the shift is to tweens is because parents hare more indulgent to younger children and let them have buying power.
If Bruno Mars and Beyonce only had fans in the tweens, they wouldn't be able to perform at the Super Bowl. Pop acts to day still have followings that last into their 20s. My wife still likes Mars and Justin Timberlake.


Visual elements started before MTV. Again, I point to famous performances on television by Elvis, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Beatles, etc. What they wore and how they projected themselves defined who they were in the minds of the audience. Even the suits and slick dance moves of doo wop and Motown acts were a carefully crafted image. Big Band musicians wore matching suits. Classical musicians dress up, even today.
Now look at the reverse. When we think of complex, artistically challenging music (jazz, blues, classical, metal) we don't really think of highly attractive people. Dirty, gritty, eccentric, and lets say homely appearances are more common, and actually increase the appeal of the act.
If you doubt this assertion, fine, but you would have a hard time naming one top 10 pop act that is dumpy, has bad skin, and is fugly.

I'm not saying that contemporary pop stars only have fans in the tween set, but that market is heavily exploited in a way it never was before. I'm not so sure that people like Justin Beiber and Miley Cyrus would have gotten the early traction they did if it wasn't for their tween appeal. I definitely don't dispute your point about the visual elements in pop predating MTV. And yes, physical appearance has long been of some importance in the popular music world - but never as much as it has been since MTV. I think the only reason that looks have been viewed as less "important" than they have been where jazz, blues and "art" music are concerned is that those styles/genres are viewed as being on the fringe, with little chance of their having mass appeal in this day and age. They are also styles/genres that are now expected to appeal to an older audience. Having said that, it's not uncommon these days for promotional shots of female jazz and classical musicians to be staged in a way that highlights any potential sex appeal. And image is still important where all of those styles are concerned, even if that use of image is not as blatant as it is with some pop acts.

 

[Jhengsman]

I'm not saying that contemporary pop stars only have fans in the tween set, but that market is heavily exploited in a way it never was before. I'm not so sure that people like Justin Beiber and Miley Cyrus would have gotten the early traction they did if it wasn't for their tween appeal. I definitely don't dispute your point about the visual elements in pop predating MTV. And yes, physical appearance has long been of some importance in the popular music world - but never as much as it has been since MTV. I think the only reason that looks have been viewed as less "important" than they have been where jazz, blues and "art" music are concerned is that those styles/genres are viewed as being on the fringe, with little chance of their having mass appeal in this day and age. They are also styles/genres that are now expected to appeal to an older audience. Having said that, it's not uncommon these days for promotional shots of female jazz and classical musicians to be staged in a way that highlights any potential sex appeal. And image is still important where all of those styles are concerned.

I agree but I would add the blues with no shortage of woman frontman/guitar slingers in short tight skirts and high heels to your Yuja Wang's of the classical world or the many smooth jazz headliners.

 

[blue4]

looks have been exploited in every facet of life since the first hot cave girl got two squirrels instead just one from the hunters. Way before MTV, Dolly Parden was doing shows where Porter Wagoner mentioned her looks several times a show. I would say MTV was more responsible for forcing every act into a c@#k rock party band in order to have any success than it was for anything else.

 

[Rev J]

Maybe we're splitting hairs here. But it's also ok to agree to disagree on things.

I'm gonna reset a little.

I am not now, and have never been a Nirvana fan. I don't dislike them. But I don't particularly dig them, either. I say that, because I am very passionate about a handful of bands that appeared around that time (Soundgarden/TOTD, Afghan Whigs, AIC, Smashing Pumpkins, Tool, Sunny Day Real Estate, to name a few notables). I must admit it was a formidable time for me, so I am biased. I truly remember thanking the universe for Alice In Chains the first time I heard them on the radio. I was so deathly ill of the glam/hairband thing. I wanted it to die a very painful death. So that is where I'm coming from.

None of my favorite bands of that era would have had the mainstream exposure they had without Nirvana happening. I'm convinced of that. Maybe it could have been another band than Nirvana. But it couldn't have been any of the above mentioned. Even Alice in Chains. Certainly not Smashing Pumpkins. I listened to Siamese Dream this morning in the car, and am reminded of this every time I hear it. One of my all time fav albums. And it simply never would have happened, unless something more accessible before it happened. I listened to Facelift recently, and recognized some 80s-ish to it that certainly wasn't there with Dirt. What changed? Nirvana happened, for one thing.

When I say Nirvana changed everything, I mean it changed everything at that time. They didn't change the music business for good. They didn't change the rock music "world" for good. Obviously. I mean, Limp Biskit and Creed happened less than a decade later. What they did do, however, is give the pop music world a much needed kick in the behind. They were part of a larger reset. But they were also a reset button. It was reset the size of hadn't been seen in too long a time before that. And that is significant. Whether it's cyclical or not is beside the point.

I don't think Curt Cobain was a genius. I do think Chris Cornell (RIP) was a genius. I do think Cobain was very talented. In many ways he wasn't very unique. He was an honest pop music fan, as some of my favorite songwriters always tend to be. He specifically wrote poppy, hooky songs with attitude, and had tons of influences he was very vocal about. He was geeky, awkward, and somewhat troubled. He didn't try to be anything he wasn't. He was Generation X.

Now, when I say that, I don't mean he was truly the "spokesperson of our generation". I think he was in many ways emblematic, maybe not so much of what our generation actually was, but what it was supposed to be at that time. We were Generation X. We were cynical and dissolusioned by the Reagan years, and sick and tired of being patronized by bad music and sitcoms. We remembered when we could see a Talking Heads video followed by something like Asia. We remembered that the best version of Sunday Bloody Sunday could only be seen on the video from Live at Red Rocks, and not from War or Under a Blood Red Sky. We remember waiting up to see the Thriller video release. We were pissed that what had defined our generational change from the 70s to the 80s (MTV) had by the late 80s become a cesspool of spandex, stage explosions, and cheesy guitar solos.

We were ready, pining even, for the exact opposite of all that. We were ready for Nirvana, whether we really liked them or not. The fact that Nirvana were not the Beatles, Zeppelin, or even U2 was kinda the point.

I don't disagree that music industry execs were very quick to get on board with the wave. And they were certainly smart enough to know what was going to sell. Alice In Chains had some serious momentum, and arguably broke the mainstream before any "grunge" group. But they were still too.... rock.... for everyone. Nirvana was not only more accessible to the masses, but they were marketable. They were Gen-X.

I think one statement I have repeatedly made here needs to be clarified.

When I say fan based narrative here is what I mean:

If for example you read and site an interview with Dave Grohl it was written under general assumption that you are a fan even on a casual level and it is worded and edited as such.

If you watch and site a documentary on Nirvana it is assumed that you are a fan and therefore it is presented and edited to fit a fans narrative.

A book same thing.

When you site any of the same media on the music business or history and trends therein it is written under the assumption that you are interested in the business or history of music and how it works.

In a lot of my arguments I was trying probably unsuccessfully that if you look at how and what Nirvana were from a business and historical standpoint vs what was said in a media that gives a fan based narrative (now you know my definition) you see a disparity.

For example sighting "The Decline". Showing one of the guys from Ratt on a lounge in his swimming pool drunkenly dousing himself in vodka. CC De Ville from Poison coked out of his mind speed rambling. Or Gene Simmons bragging about how much pussy he gets. And the presentation of all of these bands reeked of that. If you took Nirvana out of the picture it still would've died. But the fan based narrative states otherwise.

Since the Cornell vs Cobain genius thing came up I will try to do a comparison in as non offensive way as I can. I am not bringing lyrics into this I am going under the hood so to speak.

Nirvana essentially wrote standard pop songs. By that I mean using standard forms (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, out for example). In Bloom, Lithium, All Apologies etc are in this type of form. The phrasing in 4/4 time in 2, 4, or 8 bar phrases. Simple diatonic harmonies, little or simple modulations. Standard or drop D tuning or standard variations there of. I'm sorry if I am over simplifying but you get the picture.

A lot of Cornells work is much more sophisticated. Odd meters and phrase lengths. Things changing directions in weird places, non diatonic lines. For example just using the intro to "Black Hole Sun" as an example. The intro has more in common with 20th century minimalist composers like Terry Reilly, or Phillip Glass. It's in 6/8 time and uses all 12 notes of the western scale in a non chromatic way. The arpeggios have a lot of 6th, 9th, and suspended voicing that are unusual for rock music. Yet all of this is presented in a very accessible manor. Both in his solo work and in Soundgarden he also used a lot of unorthodox tunings. On top of all of these heady concepts they are presented in a very intuitive non heady way. In some ways it was like musicians music for non musicians.

C/S,
Rev J

 

[NullPorch]

I think one statement I have repeatedly made here needs to be clarified.

When I say fan based narrative here is what I mean:

If for example you read and site an interview with Dave Grohl it was written under general assumption that you are a fan even on a casual level and it is worded and edited as such.

If you watch and site a documentary on Nirvana it is assumed that you are a fan and therefore it is presented and edited to fit a fans narrative.

A book same thing.

When you site any of the same media on the music business or history and trends therein it is written under the assumption that you are interested in the business or history of music and how it works.

In a lot of my arguments I was trying probably unsuccessfully that if you look at how and what Nirvana were from a business and historical standpoint vs what was said in a media that gives a fan based narrative (now you know my definition) you see a disparity.

For example sighting "The Decline". Showing one of the guys from Ratt on a lounge in his swimming pool drunkenly dousing himself in vodka. CC De Ville from Poison coked out of his mind speed rambling. Or Gene Simmons bragging about how much pussy he gets. And the presentation of all of these bands reeked of that. If you took Nirvana out of the picture it still would've died. But the fan based narrative states otherwise.

Since the Cornell vs Cobain genius thing came up I will try to do a comparison in as non offensive way as I can. I am not bringing lyrics into this I am going under the hood so to speak.

Nirvana essentially wrote standard pop songs. By that I mean using standard forms (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, out for example). In Bloom, Lithium, All Apologies etc are in this type of form. The phrasing in 4/4 time in 2, 4, or 8 bar phrases. Simple diatonic harmonies, little or simple modulations. Standard or drop D tuning or standard variations there of. I'm sorry if I am over simplifying but you get the picture.

A lot of Cornells work is much more sophisticated. Odd meters and phrase lengths. Things changing directions in weird places, non diatonic lines. For example just using the intro to "Black Hole Sun" as an example. The intro has more in common with 20th century minimalist composers like Terry Reilly, or Phillip Glass. It's in 6/8 time and uses all 12 notes of the western scale in a non chromatic way. The arpeggios have a lot of 6th, 9th, and suspended voicing that are unusual for rock music. Yet all of this is presented in a very accessible manor. Both in his solo work and in Soundgarden he also used a lot of unorthodox tunings. On top of all of these heady concepts they are presented in a very intuitive non heady way. In some ways it was like musicians music for non musicians.

C/S,
Rev J

I suppose I should clarify I'm a way bigger fan of Soundgarden and essentially everything Chris touched than I am of Nirvana. I don't think Nirvana was as compositionally experimentally as they were tonally and lyrically. Whenever people say Kurt played poorly or sloppy I'm a little confused because I hear very intentional variations in the line that are actually fairly difficult to reproduce accurately. And the issue of lyrics I guess has been beat to death, but I will, for comparisons sake, just throw out there that I think Chris wrote more accessible lyrics. His symbolism was built more off cultural standards and was less esoteric than Kurt's. And of course we can't forget that Soundgarden especially does have plenty of just plain fun songs that were meant as jokes or satire. Nirvana didn't do that, or did it to a different level. It was definitely way more mocking, biting, and, yeah, angst driven when Nirvana did it.

 

[bearfoot]

I was about to post the same vid .

I think these are some fair criticisms presented. Most of the arguments I see in the thread suggest the person making them did not watch the video.

The worst thing IMO is the fact about there being 2 songwriters that have a stranglehold on the market. No wonder things sound so samey.

The reduction of harmonic, melodic, and lyrical complexity appears to be a factual analysis. But there is a good point that a lot of the crappy music of the past is forgotten and nostalgia has rose-tinted glasses. Just look at what the #1 albums have been. You won't see any Led Zeppelin there. You won't see Strawberry Fields, Rush, Black Sabbath, etc. You will see the ****ing Monkees.

I also agree with those who are saying something to the effect of "nature abhors a void, so this will be interesting to see what eventually tears it down". It's not as if the more interesting writing and playing stopped.

 

[Rev J]

Also ponder this. The Monkees had some good staff writers. The top 2 that come to mind are Neil Diamond who wrote "I'm a Believer" and John Stewart from the Kingston Trio who wrote "Daydream Believer".

You also have to figure the whole "Brill Building" thing. The only names that come to me from the heyday are songwriting team Carol King and Jeff (?) Goffin. In a 3 year period they were cranking out a song a week. In that period they wrote "Up on the Rooftop", "Will you Still Love me Tomorrow" ( probably the first one night stand song from a female perspective), and "Natural Woman" (probably the first pop song about female orgasm. I could just be a perv but that chorus sounds pretty orgasmic to me) songs that are still well known and are still covered today. Granted being that prolific I am sure that they wrote some crap. Law of averages in play.

Donald Fagan and Walter Becker (RIP) also had an office in the Brill Building prior to Steely Dan.

See kids I have other hobbies besides crapping on Nirvana.

I am sure that there is some amazing pop music still being produced. I quit listening to the radio years ago so I really couldn't tell you much recently.

I heard a singer named Nikki Gonzalez do a mashup of Katy Perry and Nirvana (go ahead and laugh I see the irony) that I loved.

Good pop music still exists you just have to look for it.

Also remember that it is a business. The laws of supply and demand still apply. It is easy to find a great supply of mediocrity vs supply of greatness. If a supply of greatness was created it would be exhausted quickly so for the business to survive it needs to promote mediocrity.

C/S,
Rev J

 

[squidtastic]

Interesting discussion, particularly the Cobain vs. Cornell stuff. I'm a big fan of both -- I own Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Chris Cornell albums. While it's evident that Cornell's music is, on average, more harmonically complex than Cobain's, I don't think by any means that that somehow means Cornell's music is better than Cobain's music. There is great skill in being able to construct simple melodies/harmonies that still connect with listeners and pique their interest. But what constitutes quality in music is utterly subjective, anyway.

 

[krimo]

Today's cost conscious high tech record company A&R people fueling the race to the bottom through stereotypical consumption focused corporate driven homogeneous mediocrity, it's everywhere and in everything our "civilization" has to offer...live it love it do it!

 

[Watchootognbout]

So, like everything else, the answer is money.

Duh!

Yes.
And unfortunately it led to the simplified formula of "Maximum payout for minimal effort"

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I'm surprise to not see ( maybe I didn't see it because I didn't read it all ).
I also think this is part of how things are now in our society. Everything isn't made to last, you consume and yo go to the next thing to consume in an endless cycle. The thing is with Internet, it offered the window to everyone from everywhere to sell their stuff, no need to deal with traditionnal means.

I have a feeling that it is now a very risky thing to make music like they used too and so when they do, they want ton make sure it will generate profit. So they shovel down our throat th music. Probably no one likes Katy Perry but because we hear her stuff every where, in movies, adds on tv etc thru familiarity we began to like it and so they sell it.