Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Pop music of today is no worse than 30-40 years ago. It's just that the bad pop of yesteryear didn't survive until today, nor will today's bad pop survive the next 30-40 years.
An interesting thread. As some have said the topic has been beaten to death but this is the first time I actually paid attention and read through the posts.
In truth I don't like most of what I hear these days, but I'm 67 and I don't expect to like it.
Someone referenced the bubble gum music in 60/70 and yeah, it was not particularly creative,mindless and silly - that's why it was called bubble gum - like popping a bit-o-honey in your mouth. The goofiness of that music was supposed to part of its charm (I wasn't exactly charmed but some of it was fun), but there was so much truly innovative, intense and creative music being made. It was as if the recording companies couldn't decide if they should get behind the creative or simply feed everyone sugar - as a result there was a time period where both situations flourished.
Eventually the sugar wins out because it is accepted universally. I think everyone can enjoy a light, poppy kind of tune that requires nothing of the listener but to chill out, sing along and enjoy. Not everyone wants to listen closely, hear a message or follow the intricacies of more complex compositions. So - sugar accepted by all (even those that also appreciate more complex music) and complex music accepted by a subset. The money (business) goes with the sugar. Of course these are generalizations but that's my opinion.
Current music has plenty sugar - it may come in the form beat based/rap/loop or bro-country or shock pop. It also has a fair share of violent content which really creeps me out. I haven't heard much that I feel is innovative but with that said, I don't listen to the radio very often so it might be out there, I just haven't heard it.
I also believe that a lot has to do with youth, your formative years - I gravitate to the music I grew up with. It seemed like that music was created in a perfect storm of technological advances, political upheaval and the newness associated with the birth of rock and roll. It all seemed new and fresh to and it gave a voice to young people. Well everyone has had their voice for over 70 years now but it doesn't seem to have changed anything.
In truth I don't like most of what I hear these days, but I'm 67 and I don't expect to like it.
Someone referenced the bubble gum music in 60/70 and yeah, it was not particularly creative,mindless and silly - that's why it was called bubble gum - like popping a bit-o-honey in your mouth. The goofiness of that music was supposed to part of its charm (I wasn't exactly charmed but some of it was fun), but there was so much truly innovative, intense and creative music being made. It was as if the recording companies couldn't decide if they should get behind the creative or simply feed everyone sugar - as a result there was a time period where both situations flourished.
Eventually the sugar wins out because it is accepted universally. I think everyone can enjoy a light, poppy kind of tune that requires nothing of the listener but to chill out, sing along and enjoy. Not everyone wants to listen closely, hear a message or follow the intricacies of more complex compositions. So - sugar accepted by all (even those that also appreciate more complex music) and complex music accepted by a subset. The money (business) goes with the sugar. Of course these are generalizations but that's my opinion.
Current music has plenty sugar - it may come in the form beat based/rap/loop or bro-country or shock pop. It also has a fair share of violent content which really creeps me out. I haven't heard much that I feel is innovative but with that said, I don't listen to the radio very often so it might be out there, I just haven't heard it.
I also believe that a lot has to do with youth, your formative years - I gravitate to the music I grew up with. It seemed like that music was created in a perfect storm of technological advances, political upheaval and the newness associated with the birth of rock and roll. It all seemed new and fresh to and it gave a voice to young people. Well everyone has had their voice for over 70 years now but it doesn't seem to have changed anything.
Same thing over and over.
Every generation has an older generation asking "why is modern pop music so terrible?"
Boring.
It happened to you, it happened to your parents, it happened to their parents.
Music changes, see it as evolution or de-evolution. Whatever, who cares.
Every generation has an older generation asking "why is modern pop music so terrible?"
Boring.
It happened to you, it happened to your parents, it happened to their parents.
Music changes, see it as evolution or de-evolution. Whatever, who cares.
I couldn't plow through the whole thread, but the complimentary point to how much it costs for a label to promote an artist is how much less money is being made from the sales of recordings. This two-way bind has really got the labels scared and doubling down on that factory sound.
Pop music isn't so bad... if it's done like this 
First, there's always have been, and ever will be people who thinks ANYTHING of today sucks. And it was better before. It wasn't. My dad loathed the music I grew up to liking, and he thought it was really a cultural decline when the Who came around, and smashed their instruments. Some 20 years later on I actually read in a real interview with - from the aforementioned band - John Entwistle that he was about to throw out the television whenever he heard one of "these rap videos". Absolutely unaware that there might have been people who thought exactly like him, on HIS MUSIC in the mid 60s. There sure was, has been, and ever will be a generation that doesn't "get it" anymore.
FWIW I think it's quite good, that such people such as Ed Sheeran could fill an arena 3 times, with him singing (without auto tune) and an acoustic guitar. No backing tracks, no nothing. Well, maybe a loop pedal or two. And he gets slayed by critics which beats me. Never mind his music/lyrics inane, but I like the fact. I don't mind that pop music of today sucks, but it's some kind of resistance to purist or snob culture, and I like to have guilty pleasures myself. I mean to really like Toto, Justin Bieber, Kenny G is some kind of anti-establishment too, in a matter of speaking. Some "punk" ...to it. If you think of it.
I don't mind, and I don't care that pop music today are so "lame". Frankly, as far as I can remember way back, I did never ever liked any pop music that hit the lists, top 10 music at all at that time either. I didn't loathe it, but I couldn't care less about it, and didn't diss people who loved it. But I still heard the old folks and geezers back then still whine "Ohhh god, the pop music of today... where's Cliff Richard?"
FWIW I think it's quite good, that such people such as Ed Sheeran could fill an arena 3 times, with him singing (without auto tune) and an acoustic guitar. No backing tracks, no nothing. Well, maybe a loop pedal or two. And he gets slayed by critics which beats me. Never mind his music/lyrics inane, but I like the fact. I don't mind that pop music of today sucks, but it's some kind of resistance to purist or snob culture, and I like to have guilty pleasures myself. I mean to really like Toto, Justin Bieber, Kenny G is some kind of anti-establishment too, in a matter of speaking. Some "punk" ...to it. If you think of it.
I don't mind, and I don't care that pop music today are so "lame". Frankly, as far as I can remember way back, I did never ever liked any pop music that hit the lists, top 10 music at all at that time either. I didn't loathe it, but I couldn't care less about it, and didn't diss people who loved it. But I still heard the old folks and geezers back then still whine "Ohhh god, the pop music of today... where's Cliff Richard?"
Pop music isn't so bad... if it's done like this
Never heard of them - can't say that anymore. I like it - thanks.
I'll go out on a limb and say that pop music is better now than ever, but you're just comparing the 40 songs in today's chart versus all the best songs that you remember from the 70's, 80's and 90's. Compare a point in time with a point in time and today's pop will come out on top.
Mega-hits now are written, produced and recorded by large teams of people, so that no single creative vision dominates many of them. I think people miss that, because often what is most interesting in pop music is the individual quirks.
Still, there's a lot of interesting stuff going on in pop music in spite of that, especially in terms of the grooves. Bass players still have plenty to pay attention to.
Still, there's a lot of interesting stuff going on in pop music in spite of that, especially in terms of the grooves. Bass players still have plenty to pay attention to.
I have kids in the current pop demographic so I know all the "hits" out these days. Some are catchy, as much as I hate to admit, but I think to myself...if this was done with real instruments instead of entirely on a computer, it would be much more compelling. To me anyway. I think that is the biggest difference between the "pop" of my early teen years and the stuff these days. Yes there were synths and drum machines, but alot was still real people playing real instruments.
Pop music isn't so bad... if it's done like this
if pop was always like that, the bar would be quite high for cover band
but the result is still the same in the end.
I was looking at a guy on youtube who produce music and the emphasis is more on how he got the sound than what is actually played because it always sound the same. Very predictable drum pattern, simple bass etc.
Last edited:
It's two to three people, and it's always been that way.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-favorite-song-on-the-radio-was-probably-written-by-these-two/
Invalid Link Removed
ETC...
I disagree with the notion that it's simply the endless cycle of the older generation hating on the change the younger generation is bringing about. I think there is a distinct difference in the musicality and message of groups like The Who, or Led Zeppelin, or Blue Oyster Cult and today's music. So much of what is popular in today's music is simplistic and mind-numbing, or glorifying of self-centered and self-gratifying behavior (I'm thinking mainstream hip-hop here). I compare it to the Rococo art movement which was all about the wealthy paying artists to fantasize and glorify their decadent lifestyle. It was supposed to be light, carefree, lackadaisical, and whimsical, but oftentimes, especially keeping in mind the brutality of real life for most people at the time, it's rather infuriating to think that's what humans trend to if they have the means. Today's pop scene feels a lot like that; people trying very hard to ignore real life and rather focus inwardly. It's not just in the music of today but all of today's culture seems about self satisfaction by whatever means and to whatever ends.
I think we go through cycles of wanting to face reality and then wanting to avoid it. The late 60s to early 70s featured a lot of popular music, the pop of the time, dealing with very real issues (often relating to the Vietnam War), but then the late 70s through most of the 80s were an explosion of ludicrous, silly-fun songs that came the closest to dealing with real issues in sarcastic or satirical depictions of the drug and booze laden rockstar lifestyle, which was still lightened up. Then the late 80s and early 90s saw the broiling underground punk scene explode to the surface with the iconic Seattle grunge sound which was all about social issues, drug addiction, political corruption, and in general everything that's hard about real life from single individuals to worldwide issues. That only lasted about half a decade though and hasn't really come back. Plus, though grunge was big, I don't think it qualified as the pop of the era. People just don't want to deal with real life.
There's also the argument of complexity in both lyrical themes and the music. Most people don't want to be mentally engaged by the music they listen to. As people have mentioned before, by their own admission most people who listen to pop only care if it has a good beat and is easy to listen to or maybe sing along to. The same eras I mentioned as dealing with real issues lyrically oftentimes featured advanced or downright experimental song structures and arrangements. It went along with wanting to challenge people's thoughts and opinions in the lyrics; it was all about challenging the status quo which had become unacceptable. But no one wants that right now. Nobody wants unexpected progressions or actually thoughtful key changes. Nobody wants to have to figure out what's being said. Nobody wants art to make them think anymore, and nobody wants to think about art. Hopefully it does cycle back around soon, and with everything happening in the world (and what is being said and done in underground scenes of all genres) I think it may be coming soon.
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,123
- 16,797
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
I agree to an extent, but when I listen back to the cheesy pop of 30-40 years ago I like it a lot more that today's
The Who, Led Zepplin, and Blue Oyster Cult were NOT pop music.
Apples and oranges.
I think cheesy pop is very similar no matter the era. But I think the proportion of bad pop to good pop is about the same no matter the era as well. If we could go back in time and listen to the radio and look at the records on sale, we would find a lot of artists that were huge in their day, but who simply haven't stood the test of time. I browse a lot in vintage record shops, and I come across records like that all the time - albums by once-popular artists that I've simply forgotten about completely.
