Why is modern pop music so terrible?

[Honch]

...therefore am not capable of making valid points...

No. Don't change subject now all of a sudden. Don't try to get into selective deduction. It was if you were capable of evaluating music objectively. Nothing else. I am not capable of evaluating music objectively too. Neither modern pop, ancient pop, or middle age pop, or anything in between pop, or even pre-historic pop.

 

[Double E]

Anyone trying to make an "objective" claim that some popular music is somehow intrinsically better than other popular music is full of crap.

Today's pop music doesn't have melody?!? That is an idiotic statement too. I don't love all current pop music but there's plenty of melody.

You don't have to like it...but music is not a competition and there is no way to qualify one song or era "better" than another. Music becomes popular because it moves people, if it didn't it wouldn't be popular, no matter what attempts were made to push it down our throats.

Stop being so damn cynical.

 

[antony cutler]

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.

Does he write his own material? I genuinely don't know btw.

 

[antony cutler]

OP video is spot on, and depressing.
I can't wait until we go Demolition Man style. Modern pop music will become classic commercial jingles.

Actually, in some instances, the mehtod has partly changed to using multiple teams of collaborators. There are production teams like Stargate Music Productions that use separate teams for lyrics, hooks, recording, production as collaborative tools. There's a good article in the New Yorker called The Song Machine about Stargate.

"We always start out with a musical idea. Great effort goes into creating a solid melodic core. We both play the keyboards and program, but in general Mikkel plays the instruments and controls Pro Tools, while Tor has the executive overlook as well as lyrical input. However, we both are hands on and have no rules or limitations. When we have some killer beats and musical starting points, we hook up with one of our favorite topline writers, who gets cracking on the lyrics and melody. We make sure there's a lot of melody in the track, so it can inspire the writer. Together with the topline writer we work, often tweek and simplify the song, and never quit before we feel we've got a killer hook." -- Stargate

Obviously, this method has been used before, but now, you can have this kind of collaboration digitally, across continents, which changes things a bit.

"The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub - section of the music department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention on an instrument known as a versificator"

G Orwell 1984.

 

[antony cutler]

Ah, the good old days of better pop music.

Have or have you not heard Lois, that the bird is indeed the word?

 

[monsterthompson]

Have or have you not heard Lois, that the bird is indeed the word?

There seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece...

 

[NullPorch]

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?

 

[monsterthompson]

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.

There's tons of originality and complexity out there. The problem is that most audiences don't like it, so it doesn't become popular. The McDonald's burger is hardly original, nor is it good, but it is popular.

Regarding originality, some folks just steal better than others.


Let's not forget...
The petty thief is imprisoned but the big thief becomes a feudal lord.
Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed

Edit:
Also, if making "simple" music is so easy, then why aren't more TB members doing it and getting rich? Why waste time writing more complex songs and being poor? The act of writing a simple song is harder than most people think. That is the ironic complexity of it.

 

[NullPorch]

There's tons of originality and complexity out there. The problem is that most audiences don't like it, so it doesn't become popular. The McDonald's burger is hardly original, nor is it good, but it is popular.

Regarding originality, some folks just steal better than others.


Let's not forget...
The petty thief is imprisoned but the big thief becomes a feudal lord.
Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed

You're absolutely right that there's still great stuff being made in all genres. Unfortunately, none of it seems to get popular because simple and easy seems to be the preferred right now.

 

[bass12]

There's a difference between simple and simplistic...

 

[matthewbrown]

"The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub - section of the music department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention on an instrument known as a versificator"

G Orwell 1984.

"Computer-generated songs are a fast-growing sector of the industry..."
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Double E]

Where in there am I straying from objective evaluation?

Objective analysis is fine but cannot be used as a measuring stick to identify one sample as "better" than another. Appreciation of art is subjective. Appreciation of art can defy objective criticism. What makes art popular or even good cannot be clearly identified using objective analysis.

More complex chord structure, more poignant lyrics, more intricate melody do not equal better.

My personal taste in stylistic choices aside I can see that "pop" is compositionally stagnant and lyrically asinine.

This statement is purely subjective...you even say so and then attempt to make a reversal using the word "aside" and proceed to ask where you strayed from objective evaluation.

Objective criticism is just that. It points out factual and identifiable characteristics...it should not then extend to the palatability of the art. That is when it becomes subjective criticism.

 

[blue4]

I suppose 60 years of previous pop music makes being original a touch harder today. Kind of hard to use the chords G, C, and D after CCR and Co beat them to death already. You can't use new technology or you are told that you're what's wrong with music. So you write a three minute, three chord song with jangly guitars and now you're unoriginal. Tough to be a musician nowadays.

 

[Grumry]

Stumbled on this youtube video and found it intriguing...

All the cool notes already got played.

 

[peledog]

Should be adjusted to "every decade has music that someone thinks is crap". Or even "there's always some crap music" regardless of decade or times? Almost unanimously, I've always heard people complaining that it was better before, in the decade they were growing up. I've never ever heard a 50-60 yeard old geezer say "oh, finally this decades, pop music is finally getting where I am at, all that came before was utter rubbish" . I e that someone thinks that finally "pop" music or musicians or consumers has been able to smarten up in some way or another.

Mind you that these loudness wars, and modern process, production techniques are by no means exclusive to pop music. Christ, I've even heard prog metal bands using backing tracks live, autotune gear, and other "enhancements". You know, "musicians music" where it should be slightly more of artistic merit to play everything live. They use it and are - mind you this - are not ashamed about it. Not the slightest. The actual end result, with the mastering techniques and so on, is by no means exclusive to modern pop. Rush "Vapor Trails" and Metallicas "Death Magnetic" anyone?

Yes, hence 'subjective' in the sentence prior.

 

[Rev J]

I'm going to refer to a man who's opinions are much reviled on here but I think makes a very strong case:



Is he a little harsh in his presentation? Yes but his argument is pretty dead on in my eyes. I think that most artists should take this philosophy to heart and demand better of themselves because the fans won't. If all you are fed is crap you won't know quality.

C/S,
Rev J

 

[HaphAsSard]

Objective analysis is fine but cannot be used as a measuring stick to identify one sample as "better" than another. Appreciation of art is subjective. Appreciation of art can defy objective criticism. What makes art popular or even good cannot be clearly identified using objective analysis.

More complex chord structure, more poignant lyrics, more intricate melody do not equal better.

This statement is purely subjective...you even say so and then attempt to make a reversal using the word "aside" and proceed to ask where you strayed from objective evaluation.

Objective criticism is just that. It points out factual and identifiable characteristics...it should not then extend to the palatability of the art. That is when it becomes subjective criticism.

What makes art - well, I'd rather say entertainment so that aesthetic quality as a variable is isolated from the equation - popular is very likely the subject of very detailed and pondered analysis that is commissioned by the entertainment industry and taken very seriously as we speak. As the psychological study of the mechanisms of entertainment consumption refines its instruments and predictability, and as the powers that be interested in tailoring products to the target audiences become an important market for this type of study, knowing what the average response to specific elements of popular music is becomes a thing.
The fact is that the results of this kind of inquiry would (often, but not always) probably identify precisely what has been defined above as "asinine" as "best (for the job)": potential for mass appeal on one side and quality as identified by art criticism are bound to intersect at weird angles.

There's also the point raised by @Rev J above^: how does, and if so how much, the miseducation of the buying public's ear contribute to the palatability of basic pop? I'd venture to say it impacts true artists more than it does mass entertainment professionals. What works for millions at a limbic level (yes, I am throwing in big science words without an actual clue) is probably gonna work anyway, with little regard to their ability to appreciate art, but, if the latter becomes less widespread and less refined, there is gonna be a smaller potential market for products of artistic value but less mass appeal.

 

[WhenTheDrumsStops]

Stumbled on this youtube video and found it intriguing...

Not going to watch a 20 minute video about 'plastic', but the problem with pop music is the music industry. Songs are not made, they are produced. Bands/artists don't come into existence through mutual creativity, but through suits that want make a lot of money. The music industry has been corrupted by greed, greed is the drive behind it all, not creativity. (Popular) Music is a corporate business where billions are made.

 

[NullPorch]

Objective analysis is fine but cannot be used as a measuring stick to identify one sample as "better" than another. Appreciation of art is subjective. Appreciation of art can defy objective criticism. What makes art popular or even good cannot be clearly identified using objective analysis.

More complex chord structure, more poignant lyrics, more intricate melody do not equal better.

This statement is purely subjective...you even say so and then attempt to make a reversal using the word "aside" and proceed to ask where you strayed from objective evaluation.

Objective criticism is just that. It points out factual and identifiable characteristics...it should not then extend to the palatability of the art. That is when it becomes subjective criticism.

I suppose my wording was too strong to avoid reflecting how I feel about it, but you can look at the compositional structure of most pop songs and see where they fail to do something unique or original. That's my whole criticism is that pop isn't really original. It reuses some song formula someone else made and was successful with, and lyrically never strays from some basic themes. And therein, I would also like to point out most pop lyrics are written equally poorly from a poetry/literature perspective. The word choice is often lowest-common-denominator simple (very rarely uses nuanced or advanced language) and the structure of the rhymes are usually something like ABAB or even AABBCC... etc... that may honestly be my biggest criticism because I do understand it can be hard to be completely original (although artists, musicians, and writers still do it so I tend to think that's a cop-out).

So, boiled down to purely objective observations: the musical composition and song structure is often directly taken from a previously successful song and the lyrics also fail to be well worded or even very original.

 

[Double E]

I suppose my wording was too strong to avoid reflecting how I feel about it, but you can look at the compositional structure of most pop songs and see where they fail to do something unique or original. That's my whole criticism is that pop isn't really original. It reuses some song formula someone else made and was successful with, and lyrically never strays from some basic themes. And therein, I would also like to point out most pop lyrics are written equally poorly from a poetry/literature perspective. The word choice is often lowest-common-denominator simple (very rarely uses nuanced or advanced language) and the structure of the rhymes are usually something like ABAB or even AABBCC... etc... that may honestly be my biggest criticism because I do understand it can be hard to be completely original (although artists, musicians, and writers still do it so I tend to think that's a cop-out).

So, boiled down to purely objective observations: the musical composition and song structure is often directly taken from a previously successful song and the lyrics also fail to be well worded or even very original.

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.