Science Proves Your Grandma Right About Pop Music

[Callate]

Starting in 1955, eh...?

Did they factor in that

a) No one tries to sing like Frankie Valli anymore, and

b) This is a very, very good thing?

 

[teebeeohh]

and why wouldn't it?
music is a buisiness and thus aims to make money and after 60 years we have figured out how to make the music that makes the most money. and by the same logic everyone tries to make the next COD and milk it yearly all the music sounds the same

 

[FantomOmega]

So what Science is telling me is that the Pop music industry is intentionally trying to deafen me so I can no longer distinguish good from bad music? Insidious...

Me and previous generations of people are WELL aware of this, its the younger generation of sheep-people (teens) who gobble ANYTHING that's obviously crap up and call it "high quality" and ignore actual TALENT that's slowly killing the quality of the entertainment medium as a whole

 

[Latinidiot]

This study is bogus because it has as its basis two values assumptions that cannot be taken as objective truth:
1) More complex chords in more complex combinations is better than fewer chords in fewer combinations.
2) More timbres is better than fewer timbres.

To address 1. If this is true, then the entire genre of the blues is all crap. But it isn't, people have found lots and lots of new and interesting things to do and to be invested in with the blues for over 100 years. And the blues uses 3 chords in a very precise formula. Indeed, there are a lot of popular genres that fall in harmonic formulae. That doesn't make them bad, or less good than the alternative. Also, the idea that pop music is less harmonically complex than the 50s is ridiculous. All of Doo-Wop had the same 4 chord progression. The vast majority of the R&B and early Rock'n'Roll tunes used the 12-bar blues. This is bogus and I suspect there is some seriously suspect methodology going on. This is also ignoring complexity in elements other than harmony and timbre (for example rhythm or stereo placement). And it is ignoring the value of simplicity or minimalism.

To address 2. How are they categorizing timbre? Because since the expansion of electronics we have a lot more timbral resources. And anyway, just because you don't have a lot of timbre doesn't make you bad. For example. 1960s folk music. Most often you have only a guitar and a singer. That's two timbres. You might be able to alter the guitar's timbre by changing how close your right hand is to the bridge, or alter your vocal timbre...but that is still pretty basic. And folk music is a) something old and b) well loved by a lot of people.

Music is comprised of many, many different elements these scientists are focusing on a very narrow set of them, with preconceived subjective notions of what makes something better than the other. There is no attention to genre or musical/social function.

Trooper6, Professor of Musicology

No man, timbre is the number of frequencues in a single tone. An A, for example is multiples of 220 Hz. The Ratio between these tones and overtones in a single struck note is what makes its timbre, and what makes the difference between a guitar playing an A and a piano, and even the difference between different kinds of guitars. While electrical music might give us a lot of options, very few in the popscene use this, and instead opt for taking the premanufactured stuff that comes free with the programme they use to make their grating 4chird songs.
And the simplification of pop music is about it just being simple. Its about all of it getting simpler. When blues was getting big, there was more varied music to listen to. Besides, bluesguitar is not always simple, and the singing is quite unique to its sound, especially when compared to the voices that dominate todays popsongs.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

What did you say? I can't hear, you're gonna have to speak louder.

Let me have your children!!! This EXACT song is on a mix tape my brother made for me! HAH!


Now I'll be able to say that pop music is worse then it use to be without being a turd

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Well, that was interesting if completely pointless.

 

[Clankenbeard]

Round and a round the obvious bush,
The scientist chased the weasel,
The scientist asked "what's relevant now?"
"POP" goes the weasel!

Well played sir. Your bastardized nursery rhyme is both exceedingly clever and relevant. Kudos to both your effectitious weasel and scientist.

 

[Swyftstar]

The whole spiel about the timbre pallete is something else though but honestly no less surprising. Most modern pop music seems to focus on vocals with laughably simple music behind it. Just listen to Adele's Someone Like You. It's just the same goddamn piano tune over and over again. It's like that all the time. Or even worse; electronic backing tracks. They're often even more simplistic.

Then you have that stupid "We Found Love" song by Rihanna which is the same five or six notes over and over again ad nauseum. I was just joking with my friends the other day that I think it finally happened and I officially got old because I can't stand kids music these days. I never thought that would happen.

 

[Charli]

I think this is preaching to the choir. Most Escapists look like they'd be out of the demographic for your typical pop-junk.

 

[Nouw]

Yeah, if a study says my views on modern-pop music is correct of course it's legitimate! I don't need to do further research on how they did this study, I trust them.

I'd love to see what you guys think about 'science' proving your grandma right about videogames.

 

[Mad Sun]

I'll just leave this here. Insert more text here.

I got up to make a hipster joke about it not applying to hipster bands, but then they applied it to MGMT, so I sat down.

 

[DRes82]

On a related note, I have recently begun playing Fallout: New Vegas again and the Sound track is absolutely amazing. I suggest EVERYone listen to it and then post their thoughts.

New music is awful.

 

[Roboto]

I can't remember the last time I heard good sax in pop music...

I'm really glad that now there's actually scientific proof to support my arguments.

Take that, you boombox-blasting hooligans!!

You can't have missed epic sax guy!

 

[solemnwar]

And... who cares? People who like pop music, will like it (I like some of it, sometimes against my will because it's just so darn catchy) and the people who don't like it, won't like it.


And it's hilarious how many people whine about being treated poorly because of being metalheads, or punk rockers, and then turn right the fuck around and belittle listeners of pop, and all around being great fucking hypocrites. Not saying it's happened on this thread (yet) but I've seen in IRL.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Music snobs of the World, Unite! We were right all along!

 

[teh_Canape]

I can't remember the last time I heard good sax in pop music...

well, Last Friday Night by Kathy Perry does have a pretty sweet sax solo done by Kenny G of all people =P

 

[AngloDoom]

Thank god I'm so musically retarded it all pretty much sounds the same to me, no matter the year or genre!

 

[Talvrae]

Not surprised in the least

 

[wookiee777]

So...they have somehow tried to make subjective opinion "fact"?

"Bland" is a relative term; so is unique, and simple. There is no way to scientifically prove something like homogeneity or generic-ness in music, because those are personal factors.

Though, I guess I shouldn't get too worked up. Apparently most people on the Escapist (myself included) don't listen to pop anyway.