Another article on the similarity of tunes these days

[GRollins]

People argue this back and forth, but the evidence is mounting that there's a problem:

 

Are Hit Songs Becoming Less Musically Diverse?

 

Grey

[woodtus]

The problem is the general level of musical education

[AnotherScott]

I think the conversation requires a distinction between stylistic similarities (including production/arrangement) and compositional similarities. For example, the citing of highest similarity between Teenage Dream and We R Who We R is in production/sound, but at least based on the clips there, chord changes and rhyhms are completely different (and melodies, of course), you could find songs much more compositionally similar to each other than those two are. In fact, the "similar" song that popped into my head when listening to "Teenage Dream" was "Call Me Maybe," because of the rhythmic hook. Interesting article, though.

[ElmerJFudd]

If you saw Kelly Clarkson's opening to the Billboard awards this year - the mashup medley says a lot about tempo choice, rhythmic patterns, 4/4 time, chord progressions, etc. But it's pop, hasn't this been true for a very long time? Even with its blues and country rooted beginnings with Elvis.

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

[CEB]

This is typical old people .... 'back in my day we used to walk to school .... 12 miles .... up hill .... both ways' stuff.

 

Todays music is more diverse. I put myself through college playing in a 50s and 60s classic wax rock n roll review show. (Think Sha Na Na). My Lord that stuff was all the same. Fast I IV V or Slow I vi IV V...... Occasionally you had a II to V change.

 

60s and 70s had some nice stuff when Pop and Rock guys knew a little bit about composition. Bands Like the Grass Roots did some neat stuff.

[Song80s]

People argue this back and forth, but the evidence is mounting that there's a problem:

 

Are Hit Songs Becoming Less Musically Diverse?

 

Grey

 

I mostly agree with this somewhat similar article:

 

https://medium.com/cuepoint/the-devaluation-of-music-it-s-worse-than-you-think-f4cf5f26a888

 

Here are a few thoughts;

 

-creative folks ( artists ) base their opinions on todays circumstances and tend to give up.

 

-realistically, there are millions of ordinary ( catch all for low on the creative quadrant) consumers and a relative handful of truly creative individuals.

 

- there's a tendency and a sense of belonging to 'follow the herd'. A strong creative person might have to 'break glass' and be quite different for some years plus being excellent , in order to get attention.

 

This is not old people shtick. That type comment is a reflection of that persons immediate bubble. Nothing wrong with that belief. I assert there is a bigger picture and more complexity to weigh out.

[AnotherScott]

Of course, there's always this...

 

[video:youtube]

[GRollins]

To some extent this stuff is cyclical, in that things converge, then explode in a new direction. Think of that as a sine wave-ish sort of thing.

 

There are also linear influences, such as the invention of affordable electronic synthesizers. Once introduced into the inventory of available instruments/sounds, that becomes a constant. Think of that as a DC offset.

 

There are chaotic elements, such as the Viet Nam war and civil rights in the '60s, that influence music from the outside. That led to protest songs--all pretty different from one another. Joan Baez's songs didn't sound like CSNY's, though they had similar themes. Think of that as a static discharge; unpredictable and (relatively) short-lived.

 

The similarity thing has been going on for quite a while. The spring is getting wound tighter and tighter. Music has been getting more similar and simpler. At some point, the bound up tension will release and we'll have an explosion of creativity and extremely dissimilar music, much as happened in the '60s. Some new form of music will emerge, much as rock did, and jazz before it. Precisely what that music will be, I'm not going to attempt to predict, but I will predict that it will be more complex, more rigorously "musical" rather than the endless drone notes popular in some corners now, and more experimental. It won't happen immediately, but as it matures there will eventually be one or more variations that lead to sit-down-and-listen music, as opposed to dance-to-it or background-while-drinking music.

 

Then that will run its course and things will begin the long slide back towards similarity. The cycle will continue.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that the current socio-political environment that we're in hasn't spawned a more vigorous protest music movement than we've seen thus far.

 

Grey

[Bobby Simons]

Of course, there's always this...

 

[video:youtube]

And this... (P.S.: Rick is awesome.)

[video:youtube]

[Song80s]

To some extent this stuff is cyclical, in that things converge, then explode in a new direction. Think of that as a sine wave-ish sort of thing.

 

There are also linear influences, such as the invention of affordable electronic synthesizers. Once introduced into the inventory of available instruments/sounds, that becomes a constant. Think of that as a DC offset.

 

There are chaotic elements, such as the Viet Nam war and civil rights in the '60s, that influence music from the outside. That led to protest songs--all pretty different from one another. Joan Baez's songs didn't sound like CSNY's, though they had similar themes. Think of that as a static discharge; unpredictable and (relatively) short-lived.

 

The similarity thing has been going on for quite a while. The spring is getting wound tighter and tighter. Music has been getting more similar and simpler. At some point, the bound up tension will release and we'll have an explosion of creativity and extremely dissimilar music, much as happened in the '60s. Some new form of music will emerge, much as rock did, and jazz before it. Precisely what that music will be, I'm not going to attempt to predict, but I will predict that it will be more complex, more rigorously "musical" rather than the endless drone notes popular in some corners now, and more experimental. It won't happen immediately, but as it matures there will eventually be one or more variations that lead to sit-down-and-listen music, as opposed to dance-to-it or background-while-drinking music.

 

Then that will run its course and things will begin the long slide back towards similarity. The cycle will continue.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that the current socio-political environment that we're in hasn't spawned a more vigorous protest music movement than we've seen thus far.

 

Grey

 

good thoughts, Artists in the 60's, did lead the way with social protest. Marvin Gaye is a good example ( Whats Going on). There were several huge issues, such as Viet Nam.

 

I see the compare to a cycle but the current one does not quite have the muscle or determination or volume we had in the 60's.

 

There is a similar sense of outrage with our teens , our students. I hope they galvanize and become a force, equivalent to what we learned ( and many have forgotten) in the 60's.

[GRollins]

There were several huge issues, such as Viet Nam.

 

I see the compare to a cycle but the current one does not quite have the muscle or determination or volume we had in the 60's.

 

There is a similar sense of outrage with our teens , our students. I hope they galvanize and become a force, equivalent to what we learned ( and many have forgotten) in the 60's.

 

I see several parallels between now and the '60s, all gathering steam:

--Black Lives Matter

--#Me Too

--Climate change

--Income disparity (arguably this could include Occupy Wall Street sorts of impulses)

--Gun control/school shootings

--Immigration issues

--Political issues

 

A catalyst is (so far) missing; something to bring some or all of these together. I think once that happens, there's a goodly chance that it could provide a spark to the music scene. In the '60s the protest movement (racial tensions and anti-war) was in full swing several years before the most innovative and influential bands formed. Assuming a similar pattern, this will take time to play out.

 

In the '60s the predominant force came from those in their teens and twenties, mostly lower and middle class. This time there are matters that affect all ages and income classes (e.g. the climate) as well as more focused problems (Black Lives Matter). Once some or all of these movements coalesce, we'll see more energy, but it will take alliances between people who don't yet think they have common ground.

 

Note that I'm not saying that I will necessarily even like the music that results from my hypothetical scenario. I may decide to cling stubbornly to my old favorites. But...but...what if there's something I can relate to in this possible future? I don't look forward to the turmoil we face, but I confess that I'm cautiously excited about the musical possibilities.

 

Grey

[MathOfInsects]

Echoing CEB....those articles almost always suck. Someone will pick an arbitrary set of criteria and show how older music varied more than newer music. But the criteria are almost always determined by the kinds of music older people listened to.

 

Pop music today is fantastic, and far more varied than I ever remember the pop of our youth being. Any age that can produce both Panic! At the Disco's "Say Amen" and Taylor Swift's "Delicate" is A-OK by me.

[El Lobo]

I put myself through college playing in a 50s and 60s classic wax rock n roll review show. (Think Sha Na Na). My Lord that stuff was all the same. Fast I IV V or Slow I vi IV V...... Occasionally you had a II to V change.

Was just about to write this but CEB said it first. Still playing that stuff today. It's all I IV V. The ballads and the mid-tempo pop songs are all I vi IV V. What I notice about some of today's music is there are no chord changes at all. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

[El Lobo]

I agree with one idea in that article that creating music and songs and production are done differently now than in the 50's, 60's, 70's, even 80's. Now individuals produce individual tracks and music is assembled by many people, kind of like designing and constructing a building rather than creating a very individual piece of art. That's one reason a lot of new popular music sounds the same, at least to older ears. Young people who have never heard anything else may hear the differences between hits, but people like me who cut their teeth on music that was composed by 1 or 2 people and recorded live in the studio can't hear the musicality in today's highly produced music assembled by committee.

[Jazz+]

Ever since the Beatles I have been waiting... once in a lifetime.

[GRollins]

Echoing CEB....those articles almost always suck. Someone will pick an arbitrary set of criteria and show how older music varied more than newer music. But the criteria are almost always determined by the kinds of music older people listened to.

 

Okay...so pick your criteria and prove that today's music is as varied--or more so--than the older stuff. The funny thing is, I never seem to see studies that come to that conclusion.

 

Grey

[GRollins]

I put myself through college playing in a 50s and 60s classic wax rock n roll review show. (Think Sha Na Na). My Lord that stuff was all the same. Fast I IV V or Slow I vi IV V...... Occasionally you had a II to V change.

Was just about to write this but CEB said it first. Still playing that stuff today. It's all I IV V. The ballads and the mid-tempo pop songs are all I vi IV V. What I notice about some of today's music is there are no chord changes at all. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

 

Note that the music you're referring to was prior to the flowering (*ahem*) of different music in the '60s and '70s. If anything, you're proving my thesis. People got tired of the sameness and busted out of the straight jacket.

 

Eventually, they get tired of the more complicated, demanding stuff and yearn for something a little simpler, then a little simpler, then a little simpler still...until a sufficient number of people wake up to the fact that the music is essentially dead on arrival and things start moving again.

 

Grey

[Bobby Simons]

Ever since the Beatles I have been waiting... once in a lifetime.

In the above Rick Beato video on the glut of I-IV-V-VI (in various permutations) tunes, he decided to look at the Beatles catalog. 27 #1 hits, and they went to that well exactly once - on Let It Be.

[The Real MC]

The problem is the general level of musical education

 

The problem is record companies wanting too many "me too" products and won't accept or promote anything that is pioneering.

[Song80s]

The problem is the general level of musical education

 

The problem is record companies wanting too many "me too" products and won't accept or promote anything that is pioneering.

 

that no risk/same old formula has been prevalent for 3-4 decades.

 

Today, with digital music sites, there is an abundance of sameness and quantity.

 

If you look under the weeds there are some creative artists taking chances.

[Song80s]

Echoing CEB....those articles almost always suck. Someone will pick an arbitrary set of criteria and show how older music varied more than newer music. But the criteria are almost always determined by the kinds of music older people listened to.

 

Pop music today is fantastic, and far more varied than I ever remember the pop of our youth being. Any age that can produce both Panic! At the Disco's "Say Amen" and Taylor Swift's "Delicate" is A-OK by me.

 

right. Are you listening to the music without video ?

 

Swift is a well known quality- many young girls aspire to her material

 

Panic ! is interesting. On their 6th studio album. I would need to research them and their main song writer.

 

BTW, for the past year, what % of your time is spent writing original material and promoting it ?

[OB Dave]

Frank had something to say about this.

 

[video:youtube]

[Bill H.]

THE MUSICAL DIVERSITY OF POP SONGS

In 2014, Snoop Dogg asked 50 Cent what he missed most about the past, when hip hop was what it was. 50 Cent replied authenticity,

 

 

Yeah... as if their inflated gangsta swagga was more authentic than Donald Glover's (AKA Childish Gambino's) "This Is America" -currently #1 on the Billboard hip-hop and mainstream charts.

 

I didn't bother to read any further than that. You guys will have to tell me how it turns out.

 

and BTW Donald Glover's Landau Calrissian was the only good thing I saw in the new Star Wars movie. Well him and the femme fatale

 

 

[Song80s]

There were several huge issues, such as Viet Nam.

 

I see the compare to a cycle but the current one does not quite have the muscle or determination or volume we had in the 60's.

 

There is a similar sense of outrage with our teens , our students. I hope they galvanize and become a force, equivalent to what we learned ( and many have forgotten) in the 60's.

 

I see several parallels between now and the '60s, all gathering steam:

--Black Lives Matter

--#Me Too

--Climate change

--Income disparity (arguably this could include Occupy Wall Street sorts of impulses)

--Gun control/school shootings

--Immigration issues

--Political issues

 

A catalyst is (so far) missing; something to bring some or all of these together. I think once that happens, there's a goodly chance that it could provide a spark to the music scene. In the '60s the protest movement (racial tensions and anti-war) was in full swing several years before the most innovative and influential bands formed. Assuming a similar pattern, this will take time to play out.

 

Grey

 

You are correct. The catalyst(s) has yet to emerge. Its called ballsy leadership.

Its a potential.

 

In the 60's we had that leadership of the disparate voices. There was one voice (at least), 1 person who manned the pulpit after a march on Connecticut ave, etc.

 

 

 

[CEB]

After Rachmaninov passed ... It all sucks.

[CEB]

Echoing CEB....those articles almost always suck. Someone will pick an arbitrary set of criteria and show how older music varied more than newer music. But the criteria are almost always determined by the kinds of music older people listened to.

 

Okay...so pick your criteria and prove that today's music is as varied--or more so--than the older stuff. The funny thing is, I never seem to see studies that come to that conclusion.

 

Grey

 

Don't have to. I just know because I do it. It isn't any less varied than it has ever been ..... unless you are an old grumpy dude hung up on 40-50 year old FM album rock.

[Song80s]

Echoing CEB....those articles almost always suck. Someone will pick an arbitrary set of criteria and show how older music varied more than newer music. But the criteria are almost always determined by the kinds of music older people listened to.

 

Okay...so pick your criteria and prove that today's music is as varied--or more so--than the older stuff. The funny thing is, I never seem to see studies that come to that conclusion.

 

Grey

 

Don't have to. I just know because I do it. It isn't any less varied than it has ever been ..... unless you are an old grumpy dude hung up on 40-50 year old FM album rock.

 

I understand you want to dismiss stuff from the 70's, even 80's. Or the 60's.

 

There is this thing about music that is defined as "timeless' . You can call it grumpy, thats your bubble.

 

I would assert that todays pop that is being touted as an example of being 'fantastic', ( Taylor Swift ?) is not what I call a convincing case. I think this example is not going to be timeless, in fact, it will be forgotten in 1-2 years.

 

If thats how low the bar is, to each your own.

 

I will start a topic about an album that is admired by us grumpy old men. Stay tuned if you can stand it.

[Doerfler]

I will start a topic about an album that is admired by us grumpy old men. Stay tuned if you can stand it.

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Doerfler]

After Rachmaninov passed ... It all sucks.

 

I just know because I do it. It isn't any less varied than it has ever been ..... unless you are an old grumpy dude hung up on 40-50 year old FM album rock.

 

I think these are both excellent posts by CEB.

[CEB]

I'm not saying today's Pop is good. I'm just sayin I've covered the American Pop catalog from 1955 til today and the math of the progressions isn't any less variable today than it ever has been. In fact today's set list in the Pop band tends to be more varied than at many times since 1955. None of it is Gershwin.