Is modern popular music on the decline?

brianlux

The young man in this video argues that it is, and very much so.  I really appreciated viewing this video and would say suggest that it's worth waiting to watch until you have time for the full 20 minutes.  You can't really get the full argument here with just a few sound bites.  I'd really be interested in hearing from anyone willing to watch the entire video.  The narrator offers several very thought provoking observations about where modern pop music is going today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=oVME_l4IwII

darthvedder

MTV is bringing TRL back. Pop will be OK.

brianlux

darthvedder said:

MTV is bringing TRL back. Pop will be OK.

What is TRL?

Did you like the video?

Zod

I can't see the video from here, but I feel the sentiment.

I think Rock music is definitely on the decline.  To me most modern rock bands sound homogenous and safe.  You don't have those amazing lead singers that push bands to the next level.   Even if you did, by the time protools is done it's been washed over :(   As a result Rock music tends to spend more time looking back than forward, and most (not all) of the young folks have moved on to other genres.

Pop music is pop, so I think it keeps on trucking.

Not sure about other genres.

brianlux

Zod said:

I can't see the video from here, but I feel the sentiment.

I think Rock music is definitely on the decline.  To me most modern rock bands sound homogenous and safe.  You don't have those amazing lead singers that push bands to the next level.   Even if you did, by the time protools is done it's been washed over :(   As a result Rock music tends to spend more time looking back than forward, and most (not all) of the young folks have moved on to other genres.

Pop music is pop, so I think it keeps on trucking.

Not sure about other genres.

Sorry you can't see the video, Zod.  The narrator talks about things like "loudness wars" (the over-use of compression) lowering the quality of the music by reducing timbre and dynamics, the general decline of complexity in both the music itself and the creativity of lyrics, and the increased influence of marketing on limiting what younger listeners are exposed to.

My wife sometimes tells me my opinions about music are simply a matter of me getting old but I remind her that I'm more interested in a wider range of music than the average boomer (not meaning to sound egotistical here-- I just  think that's true), and seeing this video confirms my belief that popular music is on the decline.

Which doesn't mean there aren't great groups out there making fantastic music.  The narrator points this out as well but argues that they are not well promoted by the industry so a lot of it doesn't get heard by many listeners.

HughFreakingDillon

I will watch it when I get the chance, Brian, but I will comment here before I can:

I guess it depends on what is defined as "modern popular music". Because, honestly, if it's defined as what is on the radio and/or what is pushed by big labels, then yeah, probably, but who cares? most of it is garbage anyway (to me, but if it makes someone happy, like my kids or my wife, more power to them). We have to remember that most pop music goes through peaks and valleys. There was bubblegum pop for every decade since Elvis and the Beatles; shit, the Beatles WERE bubbglegum for the first few albums.

Then the populace eventually get tired of it; you get Black Sabbath, you get the Sex Pistols, you get Nirvana, you get Queens of the Stone Age; you get bands that have been influenced by their predecessors in underground music, sometimes, especially in the case of Nirvana, even in pop music, smash it together, and you have kick ass rock n roll. And then people start to seek out other forms of music other than the Nickelbacks of the world, and it gets moving. 

there definitely is issues with the production side of it, for sure. 

Labels will only promote what they can sell to the masses, the lowest common denominator of casual music fan. They figured this out a long time ago. there simply isn't enough money in doing anything else. not with everyone stealing music and now streaming services giving artists a fraction of a penny per song. They didn't start promoting Nirvana until it blew up on its own. there is no way to predict an explosion like that one. But, that is a fairly isolated case. 

I am definitely not a hard core indie guy. I like pretty standard stuff. if I like something and it appears on the radio, I'm not going to hate it simply because it's on the radio (I have friends like this, drives me nuts). I just don't dig most of what's on there now. But I think age might have a little to do with it. well, not age, but experience and the general passage of time. all big music lovers have a romanticized ideal of their "golden age of music", for me that's grunge. To others it's the 70's. To others its disco. And when popular music moves away from that, to those people "the new music" is not considered "quality". Emotion is huge when tied into it. 

I think there was only a short period of time where radio and what the labels pushed lined up with what an odd segment of the population was listening to, and it just so happened to be good enough that many more people also happened to like it. I don't know if we'll see that again. 

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

I will watch it when I get the chance, Brian, but I will comment here before I can:

I guess it depends on what is defined as "modern popular music". Because, honestly, if it's defined as what is on the radio and/or what is pushed by big labels, then yeah, probably, but who cares? most of it is garbage anyway (to me, but if it makes someone happy, like my kids or my wife, more power to them). We have to remember that most pop music goes through peaks and valleys. There was bubblegum pop for every decade since Elvis and the Beatles; shit, the Beatles WERE bubbglegum for the first few albums.

Then the populace eventually get tired of it; you get Black Sabbath, you get the Sex Pistols, you get Nirvana, you get Queens of the Stone Age; you get bands that have been influenced by their predecessors in underground music, sometimes, especially in the case of Nirvana, even in pop music, smash it together, and you have kick ass rock n roll. And then people start to seek out other forms of music other than the Nickelbacks of the world, and it gets moving. 

there definitely is issues with the production side of it, for sure. 

Labels will only promote what they can sell to the masses, the lowest common denominator of casual music fan. They figured this out a long time ago. there simply isn't enough money in doing anything else. not with everyone stealing music and now streaming services giving artists a fraction of a penny per song. They didn't start promoting Nirvana until it blew up on its own. there is no way to predict an explosion like that one. But, that is a fairly isolated case. 

I am definitely not a hard core indie guy. I like pretty standard stuff. if I like something and it appears on the radio, I'm not going to hate it simply because it's on the radio (I have friends like this, drives me nuts). I just don't dig most of what's on there now. But I think age might have a little to do with it. well, not age, but experience and the general passage of time. all big music lovers have a romanticized ideal of their "golden age of music", for me that's grunge. To others it's the 70's. To others its disco. And when popular music moves away from that, to those people "the new music" is not considered "quality". Emotion is huge when tied into it. 

I think there was only a short period of time where radio and what the labels pushed lined up with what an odd segment of the population was listening to, and it just so happened to be good enough that many more people also happened to like it. I don't know if we'll see that again. 

Excellent comments here, HFD.  I agree that most of what is on radio and/or pushed by big labels is crap.  Yet I've never quite been able to put my finger on why it seems that way to me.  Mostly I've come up with vague terms but the way the narrator puts it, in real, specific terms, made a lot of sense to me.  At the very least, I think you'll find the video interesting when you get a chance to watch it.

ledvedderman

I really enjoyed this video and I agree with him 99%. The only thing that stood out to me is towards the very end he made a comment along the lines of that if you like a song, that you'll love it upon first listen. Let me preface that I'm unaware if he means this in regard to just pop music, or all music. If he's talking pop, maybe. But take the Timberlake "Can't Stop the Feeling". First time I heard it, I thought it was cheap and below a dude with his pop music reputation. But then I decided to look at it for what it was, "a fun song for a kids movie." Then I saw my son dancing to it at a wedding this summer, and when I'm down I play that song and I'm back at that wedding watching my son dance with his friends. So that song makes me very happy now and I love it when I hated it first. 
If he means all music, than I strongly disagree. For example, when Ryan Adams' Prisoner album leaked in December of last year, nothing stood out to me. They all sounded similar. Then it just clicked after many listens and it's my favorite album of 2017 so far. I'm kind of going through that with the new album by The National. I know I'm going to eventually really get it. Some of my favorite songs and albums (and arguably some of the best albums ever) are albums that take time and attention. Kid A, Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Binaural, Nebraska. All of those albums (and the individual songs) aren't made to be loved on first listen. They're to challenge your preconceived views of those artists and what a song by them should sound like. And that's why they're great. They can evolve and know that eventually serious listeners will come around and see it as art. 
But everything else, I'm with this fella. 

HughFreakingDillon

a buddy of mine claims he can tell within the first 15 seconds of a song if it's good/if he'll like it or not. I laugh. 

Zod

I agree on the comments about the loudness war.   Something about modern mastering makes music sound bland.   Older albums (anything from the mid 90's  or earlier) seem to have more life in them and sound better... (whether it's genre's of music I like or don't like).   Even take Brendan O' Brien.   Albums he mixed/mastered in the 90s like Vs, Vitalogy, Purple etc... They sound amazing from the crappiest 90s car stereo to a 5000 home stereo system.   His modern albums don't sound mastered nearly as well.    I often wonder how much control the producer has over the final process. 

I agree there's good music out there, but there's not many entities left to look for, develop and promote that music.   I was watching the glamour and the squalor, and all the new music that guy (and subsequently other radio stations) were playing in the 90s.   It was an amazing time for music.   Albums would sell by the millions back then.   What got me was later in the documentary, when the radio station got bought up, and stopped looking for/playing new music.   That's pretty much what happened to almost all of the radio.  They all became greatest hits radio stations, and the odd new song they did play was bland modern new music (or new music from old bands, which would only go in rotation for a short time).

Record Companies were crooked as hell, and made lots of money off artists, but they also put lots of money into the artists.   Love 'em or hate 'em, I think the industry is worse off for their loss of influence.

HughFreakingDillon

something I find fascinating these days is that modern rock stations, at least in Winnipeg, almost always fail. They inevitibly change formats to classic rock, as that is what sells. 

is it the quality of music on the modern rock stations, or is it that kids are listening to streaming and digital platforms rather than radio? I would say it's a bit of both. 

I remember when my first mp3 player had a radio component to it. I don't know if I've ever owned an ipod that had a radio in it. maybe there are radio apps you can get? I don't know. And I really don't care. With 7000+ songs on my ipod, I don't need radio. 

Tim Simmons

Radio is a pointless format in 2017. I'm surprised it even exists TBH.

brianlux

ledvedderman said:

I really enjoyed this video and I agree with him 99%. The only thing that stood out to me is towards the very end he made a comment along the lines of that if you like a song, that you'll love it upon first listen. Let me preface that I'm unaware if he means this in regard to just pop music, or all music. If he's talking pop, maybe. But take the Timberlake "Can't Stop the Feeling". First time I heard it, I thought it was cheap and below a dude with his pop music reputation. But then I decided to look at it for what it was, "a fun song for a kids movie." Then I saw my son dancing to it at a wedding this summer, and when I'm down I play that song and I'm back at that wedding watching my son dance with his friends. So that song makes me very happy now and I love it when I hated it first. 
If he means all music, than I strongly disagree. For example, when Ryan Adams' Prisoner album leaked in December of last year, nothing stood out to me. They all sounded similar. Then it just clicked after many listens and it's my favorite album of 2017 so far. I'm kind of going through that with the new album by The National. I know I'm going to eventually really get it. Some of my favorite songs and albums (and arguably some of the best albums ever) are albums that take time and attention. Kid A, Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Binaural, Nebraska. All of those albums (and the individual songs) aren't made to be loved on first listen. They're to challenge your preconceived views of those artists and what a song by them should sound like. And that's why they're great. They can evolve and know that eventually serious listeners will come around and see it as art. 
But everything else, I'm with this fella. 

Yeah, that part I disagreed with also.  There have been many times where songs or bands I didn't like at first grew on me.  I guess some people zero in more quickly though.  I remember Neil Young saying somewhere that he can tell right off if he is going to like something or not.  Not so for me.  Like you, I was right with the guy though on the rest of the video. 

brianlux

Zod said:

I agree on the comments about the loudness war.   Something about modern mastering makes music sound bland.   Older albums (anything from the mid 90's  or earlier) seem to have more life in them and sound better... (whether it's genre's of music I like or don't like).   Even take Brendan O' Brien.   Albums he mixed/mastered in the 90s like Vs, Vitalogy, Purple etc... They sound amazing from the crappiest 90s car stereo to a 5000 home stereo system.   His modern albums don't sound mastered nearly as well.    I often wonder how much control the producer has over the final process. 

I agree there's good music out there, but there's not many entities left to look for, develop and promote that music.   I was watching the glamour and the squalor, and all the new music that guy (and subsequently other radio stations) were playing in the 90s.   It was an amazing time for music.   Albums would sell by the millions back then.   What got me was later in the documentary, when the radio station got bought up, and stopped looking for/playing new music.   That's pretty much what happened to almost all of the radio.  They all became greatest hits radio stations, and the odd new song they did play was bland modern new music (or new music from old bands, which would only go in rotation for a short time).

Record Companies were crooked as hell, and made lots of money off artists, but they also put lots of money into the artists.   Love 'em or hate 'em, I think the industry is worse off for their loss of influence.

Somewhere I read something similar about record companies- how they often put a lot of effort into developing band and musicians, not just spitting them out.  A guy like Ahmet Ertegun of Atlantic Records was responsible for people like Sam and Dave, Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett among others to develop and become big stars. 

tbergs

I try to be optimistic about the music genre these days and think it's just me growing older, but I get more confident every day that it's the quality of rock music that is suffering the most. I hear great new stuff from the bluegrass/folk genres that I still enjoy a lot, but rock is schlock. I quit listening to rock music on the radio at least 5 years ago now. It was either terrible new stuff or the same old rotation of 90's and early 00's hits we've all heard a million times. God forbid they break out the deeper tracks off those great records of that time period. It's all the lead singles these days. Not even the follow-up singles get played that much. In addition the radio personalities are terrible too. It's no surprise they replay old Casey Kasam countdown's.

Even the days of the informative radio anthology show are almost dead. I grew up on Rick Dees and the Weekly Top 40, Mike Harvey's Super Gold, Lou Brutus' Hard Drive, Bill St. James' Flashback and those numerous Beatles weekend shows. Hell, even Jed The Fish wasn't that bad, even though he annoyed me. I loved hearing the personal back stories of the lesser known songs and albums. I still occasionally stream Hard Drive, but that's it.
 

PJ_Soul

Tim Simmons said:

Radio is a pointless format in 2017. I'm surprised it even exists TBH.

I certainly don't listen to it, but I have noticed that all of my friends still listen to it almost exclusively in their cars (if I had a car myself, I would be using Spotify - my friends are like dinosaurs ) .... however, they are all in their early 40s. I doubt Gens Y and Z are doing that.

Tim Simmons

This video was pretty bad (his bias diminished his argument and he came across as pretty smarmy). Music is a business and labels are gonna do what they can to get the best return. While brickwalling is disappointing, the song is the song and you live and die by that. The millennial whoop is a trend and hardly the source of decline. Is its prevalence any really different than that Grunge guitar crunch of the early 90's? And IDK how you can fault 2 dudes who figured out how to make pop songs. if you take both of their 10 biggest hits, outside of Verse Chorus Verse Chorus Bridge Chorus  structure, there are very few similarities. Its silly to blame them especially since there are tons of bigs songs w/o their involvement or plenty of flps they have written. 

To me the video comes across as a collection of things that he (and many people) had gripes with and then attributed them to the reason as why he doesn't like current pop music. 

ledvedderman

^ I really liked this post, Tim. While I agree with most of what he said, I don't know if I attribute any of it to a lower quality of pop music. I mean, most of us here agree with the loudness wars. But if we're focusing strictly on pop music listeners who have never been in a studio or have preferred sound, they're not going to pick up on loudness. They don't know the dynamics of what sonically makes a song. So, this is an interesting video to people like us who can talk about compression and reference great sounding recordings. So while I agree with most of the video, I think he's focusing on the wrong thing. If he wants to break it up to a production/mixing/mastering/engineering thing, yeah. The problem with pop music isn't that it's repetitive, manufactured poorly in the studio, songwriters, labels, etc. It's that the songs are awful and don't move people. Take these pop songs, strip everything out but a guitar or piano, throw in the lyrics and if it's bad in the most pure form- then you have a bad song and no amount of studio tricks or PR will fix it. The PR can sell a bad song, but that's their job. But if his point is that the quality of music has declined, yes. But maybe it's that music education is being slashed in this country. Maybe it's kids caring more for computers, games, whatever to make them want to pick up a guitar. There aren't any new guitar heroes for this generation. I think the last wave of pop stars who could play (Mayer, Urban, Paisley) are now mostly out of the mainstream and not as guitar centered as they once were. So it's tough to get one kid in a neighborhood to pick up a guitar, but throw in a kid to play bass, guitar, drums, and a singer? Good luck. 

Tim Simmons

I think its a confluence of a lot of things.

Yeah, music education is a big one. But, many pop stars today do play guitar or piano (maybe not when they perform - but when writing). Taylor Swift is the biggest pop star in the world. She writes most of her own songs. Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran all play instruments and write their own stuff. I think the labels are where alot of homogeneity comes in and , like he said in the video (The only salient point he made IMO), they want to reduce their risk and see see return on their investment. So you get things like dr. Luke and other co writers and producers crafting songs. You get less variety at the top of the charts. But I don't see that as a death, its just more focused to those who consume it. There certainly isn't a dearth of well crafted music out there.

Shifting tastes also has a lot tt do with it. Most current pop is indebted to hip hop, R&B and electronic dance music now. Which leans more on keyboards, arpeggiators and other synths and drum machines. Rock just isn't popular anymore. its relegated to jazz in the 60s. It won't go away, but its never going to be huge again. 

To piggy back off that, I think people will always prefer their era over the modern era. 'Things were better back then'. Or prefer their likes over what they dislike (duh). And I think thats all this is. This is music made for young people. Us posting on a forum for a 25 year old band from the 90s isn't supposed to understand the appeal of a Rihanna.

That being said, I'm a huge fan of pop music today. I think its great. I think its much better than the pop music I grew up with in the late 80s and all the 90's and early aughts.  
 

PJ_Soul

This thread makes me feel young.
Sorry, but I still think most of this really is about just getting old and unconsciously developing that "things ain't what they used to be and get off my lawn" type of mindset, lol.
But I am in total agreement with Tim Simmons' take on the matter.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

This thread makes me feel young.
Sorry, but I still think most of this really is about just getting old and unconsciously developing that "things ain't what they used to be and get off my lawn" type of mindset, lol.
But I am in total agreement with Tim Simmons' take on the matter.

that's part of it, but it's not all of it. I mean, I still like a lot of new music, but none of it is on the radio or pushed by big labels, nor does it hearken back to the days of yore (1992).