True, but more variety and experimentation in general makes any genre of music better (unless you're Slayer) .dagens24 said:
Science Proves Your Grandma Right About Pop Music
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
heh. This is why I believe that the modern pop music genre should be relabelled to a new 'generic' genre so that the genre pop can become what it once was, a category known as popular, something that isn't locked into any particular genre and is a spot to put in music that is popular, though I admit there would probably be a lot of cheese and one hit wonders in this category.
In case anyone's interested, here's the data compiled into infographics, behind the research mentioned in the OP.
Figure 1: Method schematic summary with pitch data
Figure 2: Pitch distributions and networks.
Figure 3: Timbre distributions.
Figure 4: Loudness distributions.
Complete with further explanations and bibliography at http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html.
Figure 1: Method schematic summary with pitch data
Figure 2: Pitch distributions and networks.
Figure 3: Timbre distributions.
Figure 4: Loudness distributions.
Complete with further explanations and bibliography at http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html.
I don't think they mean within each song, I think they mean comparing different songs to each other of each year. As in every song of recent years are trying to sound like each other, yet louder.dagens24 said:
But is this is inevitable with a music genre as artistically bankrupt to define itself as "pop(ular) music"? It will not try to approach a particular theme, just try to be as much like what everyone else is doing, popular. Was was a category has become theme in itself, it's like a snake eating its own tail.
Pop music in general has been pretty goddamn awful for at least the last 20 years. It seems to get more awful and generic with every passing year.
Thank god I'm a metalhead.
Thank god I'm a metalhead.
I've tried listening to other musics, and have come to the conclusion that for the most part, simpler is better when it comes to music. And while the Pop genre may have become more 'generic'... but then again, music is also far more diverse now because of a whole lot more genres. There is FAR more musical diversity now there there's been in the past... forever, really.
The proliferation of four-chord music is the same reason for the high-key "Teal and Orange" color-correction abuse in visual media - images using those colors have been proven over the years to have the biggest, most memorable effect on people. Likewise, restricting a song to just the four most contrasting chords that sound good together, or also possible with just five notes from the scale have proven to stick in people's minds for the longest time. The most prolific songwriter of all time (Before the Beatles put him out of business by writing their own songs - he was the guy behind Elvis Presley's hits) noted that a song with simple chords and lyrics simple enough for a five-year-old to follow has a high chance of being a hit.
How many people can bother to listen to the entirety of the 1812 overture, instead of skipping to the most simple, memorable part?
The proliferation of four-chord music is the same reason for the high-key "Teal and Orange" color-correction abuse in visual media - images using those colors have been proven over the years to have the biggest, most memorable effect on people. Likewise, restricting a song to just the four most contrasting chords that sound good together, or also possible with just five notes from the scale have proven to stick in people's minds for the longest time. The most prolific songwriter of all time (Before the Beatles put him out of business by writing their own songs - he was the guy behind Elvis Presley's hits) noted that a song with simple chords and lyrics simple enough for a five-year-old to follow has a high chance of being a hit.
How many people can bother to listen to the entirety of the 1812 overture, instead of skipping to the most simple, memorable part?
The only indisputable aspect of this so-called scientific study is the fact that songs are generally louder these days. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, depending on what the artist is trying to achieve with the song. The rest of it is conclusions based off unreliable data, ie you'd be just as well off drawing a conclusion from tea leaves. Not that I'm defending the shit infested waters that are pop music, but this "study" doesn't prove shit.
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I've read findings like this on a number of occasions. Indeed people have criticized the music industry for a while on these merits, songs trying to drown each other out, and of course how the industry keeps repackaging the same basic product, and doesn't take the time to cultivate talent through failures anymore and help them grow as artists. You wind up with one boy band/girl band or Bieber/Timberlake/Debbie Gibson/Britney Spears, etc... you farm them until they seriously flag, then drop them for someone almost exactly like them with the same basic sound and a style for the new youth, perhaps setting up a comeback tour or whatever. On top of that while there are tons of performers, there aren't that many songwriters, and apparently new talent finds itself locked out in many cases. Some guy like Elton John, Billy Joel, or countless others writers tons of songs for differant people (and gets big bucks off of it usually), they have distinctice styles and do the same basic things in many cases, especially as they are getting older. While I'm just using names randomly, your typical studio would say rather buy something jotted down on toilet paper by Elton John during a paticularly vigorous dump (and listed under a pseudonym or whatever), than risk a new writer in many cases (while there are execeptions). A lot of people will argue that this is just because the people of previous generations were so much more talented, it's actually because music has become the kind of product where risks aren't appreciated so the big labels stick with a formula that makes money. Every once in a while you see something come up from the "indie" scene, but that's an exception, rather than the rule, and in many cases an elevated "indie" is quickly forced into doing what everyone else is.
At any rate, like it or not, this is all a common rant about the music industry, and you see people talking about how everything is the same all the time. I'm pretty sure I've read things with people breaking down Bieber, Britney Spears, and others who were/are "hot" and comparing them to those who came before. Britney is kind of a has been now, but she was one of the big people pointed fingers at as a "product" as opposed to an "artist".
At any rate, like it or not, this is all a common rant about the music industry, and you see people talking about how everything is the same all the time. I'm pretty sure I've read things with people breaking down Bieber, Britney Spears, and others who were/are "hot" and comparing them to those who came before. Britney is kind of a has been now, but she was one of the big people pointed fingers at as a "product" as opposed to an "artist".
