Another article on the similarity of tunes these days

[Song80s]

I'm not saying today's Pop is good. I'm just sayin I've cover the American Pop catalog from 1955 til today and the math of the progressions isn't any less variable 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.

 

So you acknowledge todays pop is not good, it simply more varied

in its non-goodness

 

Thats not much to get enthused about. Thanks for not saying 'fantastic '

 

[burningbusch]

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.

 

Generational bias. We'll see how timeless the music of the 60s-70s turns out to be once the boomers are gone. I asked my two youngest (early 20s) how many Beatles songs they could name. They came up with one. The music that's most important to most people is what they were listening to in their teens. It is the soundtrack for their coming of age and they always return to it. It MEANS something to them that other generations can't relate to and it's critical that it's unique, their own, made by their generation (largely) for their generation. Older generations thinking the newest generations' music is garbage is exactly the desired response.

 

Busch.

[burningbusch]

I'm not saying today's Pop is good. I'm just sayin I've cover the American Pop catalog from 1955 til today and the math of the progressions isn't any less variable 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.

Vocal music is largely variations of step-wise melodies on top of diatonic harmonies. How many singers want to tackle Chick Corea's "You're Everything?" (which is clearly an instrumental melody/harmonies turned into a vocal piece).

 

Busch.

[Song80s]

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.

 

Generational bias. We'll see how timeless the music of the 60s-70s turns out to be once the boomers are gone. I asked my two youngest (early 20s) how many Beatles songs they could name. They came up with one. The music that's most important to most people is what they were listening to in their teens. It is the soundtrack for their coming of age and they always return to it. It MEANS something to them that other generations can't relate to and it's critical that it's unique, their own, made by their generation (largely) for their generation. Older generations thinking the newest generations' music is garbage is exactly the desired response.

 

Busch.

 

I am acquainted with about a dozen 20's somethings in my local area. Music is topic A.

 

They are similar to your youngsters. Nothing surprising there. They do not have a frame of reference before yr 2000. No sense of big picture. Next to Zero interest in music history.

 

I mentioned Hendrix. " Oh yeah, I heard of him ".

They simply do not know what they do not know.

What strikes me is a lack of curiosity.

 

As if today is an end all be all for the 20 somethings I know.

 

Sure, I was raised on the Beatles. I was 12 yrs old. ( 1964). I was into Duane Eddy, Chet Atkins, Chuck Berry, various others on American Bandstand. I had curiosity.

 

BTW, is Hendrix generational bias ?

[burningbusch]

First, musicians should be interested in music history and a wider variety artists. Lay people know what they like and that's the extent of it. For boomers and earlier generations, music was a much bigger deal than it is today. Kids today have far more entertainment options available.

 

How many boomer non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) know squat about Cole Porter, Irvine Berlin, Basie, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Glen Miller? They were giants in their day. The people you mentioned were really contemporaries, or at most one generation removed (Eddy and Chuck Berry played R&R). You're expecting these kids to appreciate music that's many decades and several generations removed, simply because it was important to you.

 

Why Hendrix? Ellington, for example, is vastly deeper, far more sophisticated and has a songbook of over 3,000 compositions.

 

Busch.

[GRollins]

For some reason, jazz doesn't get mentioned when people start this, "It was what you listened to when you were [x] years old." People manage to (re)discover jazz in their own way when the time is right. Miles Davis, John Coltrane, even Sinatra get "found" by those who go looking...and appreciated by those who weren't even born yet (or their parents, for that matter) when Davis, et. al. were in their prime.

 

There's enough meat on those bones for people to get some good out of jazz, even now. Some types/eras of rock are deep enough and rich enough that they could stand to be rediscovered. Clearly there are bands and songs that are best left in the metaphorical trash can and good riddance. However, there's stuff that might yet be worth another look once the current sameness trend runs its course.

 

As a related point, note that vinyl sales continue to increase. People are buying old albums.

 

I, IV, V songs are easy to write, learn, and are predictable, hence comfortable, for audiences. Personally, speaking as a non-trivial bass player, they're living death. Not one of my tunes uses that progression. Can't stand it. If my prediction turns out to be right, audiences will tire of it and start hankering for a little more variety. It's not that I, IV, V stuff will go away, it's that there will be alternatives, of which there are precious few at this time.

 

Grey

[burningbusch]

For some reason, jazz doesn't get mentioned when people start this, "It was what you listened to when you were [x] years old." People manage to (re)discover jazz in their own way when the time is right. Miles Davis, John Coltrane, even Sinatra get "found" by those who go looking...and appreciated by those who weren't even born yet (or their parents, for that matter) when Davis, et. al. were in their prime.

 

There's enough meat on those bones for people to get some good out of jazz, even now. Some types/eras of rock are deep enough and rich enough that they could stand to be rediscovered. Clearly there are bands and songs that are best left in the metaphorical trash can and good riddance. However, there's stuff that might yet be worth another look once the current sameness trend runs its course.

 

Grey

 

Big band swing music of the 30s-40s was hugely popular among the greatest generation. It was jazz, but unlike be-bop, it was dance music. With be-bop (Miles, C. Parker, etc.) the tempo became so fast it was no longer danceable and transformed into listening music. Also, the swing bands frequently showcased a singer whereas be-bop was largely instrumental. Jazz is serious music and is taught at prestigious schools (big band and combo). We'll see if rock ever attains that status (I have serious doubts) and gets beyond the Jack Black "School of Rock."

 

Busch.

[Song80s]

 

1) First, musicians should be interested in music history and a wider variety artists. Lay people know what they like and that's the extent of it. For boomers and earlier generations, music was a much bigger deal than it is today. Kids today have far more entertainment options available.

 

2)How many boomer non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) know squat about Cole Porter, Irvine Berlin, Basie, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Glen Miller? They were giants in their day.

 

3) The people you mentioned were really contemporaries, or at most one generation removed (Eddy and Chuck Berry played R&R). You're expecting these kids to appreciate music that's many decades and several generations removed, simply because it was important to you.

 

4) Why Hendrix? Ellington, for example, is vastly deeper, far more sophisticated and has a songbook of over 3,000 compositions.

 

Busch.

 

1) I agree.

 

2) You are changing the context to make your point. It appeared

to me we were discussing pop, rock, R & R

 

3) I know, Berry, Atkins were 1 generation back. At least

it was not 'zero generations ' back in time, starting with the Beatles.

 

I am not as willing to give up on music history like most.

I will bring up Marvin Gaye. I will bring up Hendrix when

I discuss music with 20 somethings.

 

In fact, I maintain American history is important. If

most in my demographic don't care to set an example,

thats fine. But I believe in the importance of history.

 

4) Is Hendrix a timeless classic ? The context of pop

and rock and R & R is relevant.

[Song80s]

For some reason, jazz doesn't get mentioned when people start this, "It was what you listened to when you were [x] years old." People manage to (re)discover jazz in their own way when the time is right. Miles Davis, John Coltrane, even Sinatra get "found" by those who go looking...and appreciated by those who weren't even born yet (or their parents, for that matter) when Davis, et. al. were in their prime.

 

Grey

 

thats correct. Jazz is discovered when the time is right. We had a lengthy discussion

on jazz fusion of the 80's here. It was apparent to me that there is enthusiasm for this genre.

The 80's, by virtue of artists like Metheny , Yellow Jackets, Weather Report etc, etc that there was entire depth to sink into.

 

 

[burningbusch]

 

1) First, musicians should be interested in music history and a wider variety artists. Lay people know what they like and that's the extent of it. For boomers and earlier generations, music was a much bigger deal than it is today. Kids today have far more entertainment options available.

 

2)How many boomer non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) know squat about Cole Porter, Irvine Berlin, Basie, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Glen Miller? They were giants in their day.

 

3) The people you mentioned were really contemporaries, or at most one generation removed (Eddy and Chuck Berry played R&R). You're expecting these kids to appreciate music that's many decades and several generations removed, simply because it was important to you.

 

4) Why Hendrix? Ellington, for example, is vastly deeper, far more sophisticated and has a songbook of over 3,000 compositions.

 

Busch.

 

1) I agree.

 

2) You are changing the context to make your point. It appeared

to me we were discussing pop, rock, R & R

 

3) I know, Berry, Atkins were 1 generation back. At least

it was not 'zero generations ' back in time, starting with the Beatles.

 

I am not as willing to give up on music history like most.

I will bring up Marvin Gaye. I will bring up Hendrix when

I discuss music with 20 somethings.

 

In fact, I maintain American history is important. If

most in my demographic don't care to set an example,

thats fine. But I believe in the importance of history.

 

4) Is Hendrix a timeless classic ? The context of pop

and rock and R & R is relevant.

 

I'm not changing context at all. I'm simply pointing out your generational bias. We're talking about pop music, i.e. the popular music of the day. Take this back as far back into the 20th century as you like. The artists I mentioned meant as much to the greatest generation as the Beatles/Hendrix are to the Woodstock generation. You seem to be only willing to go back to the music of your generation.

 

As far as Hendrix being timeless, I don't know. Most people today don't know Duke Ellington's music and those that do likely only know "Satin Doll" and "Take the A Train." Very sad considering this brilliant, brilliant man has so much to offer.

 

Busch.

[burningbusch]

For some reason, jazz doesn't get mentioned when people start this, "It was what you listened to when you were [x] years old." People manage to (re)discover jazz in their own way when the time is right. Miles Davis, John Coltrane, even Sinatra get "found" by those who go looking...and appreciated by those who weren't even born yet (or their parents, for that matter) when Davis, et. al. were in their prime.

 

Grey

 

thats correct. Jazz is discovered when the time is right. We had a lengthy discussion

on jazz fusion of the 80's here. It was apparent to me that there is enthusiasm for this genre.

The 80's, by virtue of artists like Metheny , Yellow Jackets, Weather Report etc, etc that there was entire depth to sink into.

 

 

Wrong, as I pointed out above. Your definition of jazz is extremely narrow.

 

Reference: Glenn Miller had 35 Billboard and 24 Hit Parade Top 10 Records, for a total of 59. Glenn Miller had 7 Billboard and 10 Hit Parade #1 Records, for a total of 17.

 

https://www.colorado.edu/amrc/sites/default/files/attached-files/glenn_miller_top_10_study.pdf

 

Busch.

[Song80s]

 

1) First, musicians should be interested in music history and a wider variety artists. Lay people know what they like and that's the extent of it. For boomers and earlier generations, music was a much bigger deal than it is today. Kids today have far more entertainment options available.

 

2)How many boomer non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) know squat about Cole Porter, Irvine Berlin, Basie, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Glen Miller? They were giants in their day.

 

3) The people you mentioned were really contemporaries, or at most one generation removed (Eddy and Chuck Berry played R&R). You're expecting these kids to appreciate music that's many decades and several generations removed, simply because it was important to you.

 

4) Why Hendrix? Ellington, for example, is vastly deeper, far more sophisticated and has a songbook of over 3,000 compositions.

 

Busch.

 

1) I agree.

 

2) You are changing the context to make your point. It appeared

to me we were discussing pop, rock, R & R

 

3) I know, Berry, Atkins were 1 generation back. At least

it was not 'zero generations ' back in time, starting with the Beatles.

 

I am not as willing to give up on music history like most.

I will bring up Marvin Gaye. I will bring up Hendrix when

I discuss music with 20 somethings.

 

In fact, I maintain American history is important. If

most in my demographic don't care to set an example,

thats fine. But I believe in the importance of history.

 

4) Is Hendrix a timeless classic ? The context of pop

and rock and R & R is relevant.

 

I'm not changing context at all. I'm simply pointing out your generational bias. We're talking about pop music, i.e. the popular music of the day. Take this back as far back into the 20th century as you like. The artists I mentioned meant as much to the greatest generation as the Beatles/Hendrix are to the Woodstock generation. You seem to be only willing to go back to the music of your generation.

 

As far as Hendrix being timeless, I don't know. Most people today don't know Duke Ellington's music and those that do likely only know "Satin Doll" and "Take the A Train." Very sad considering this brilliant, brilliant man has so much to offer.

 

Busch.

 

Some confusion there. I never zero summed all jazz as being 80's, narrow, etc,

 

if you are good at showing the musical examples of Glenn Miller, Duke , take charge

and make it a teachable moment.

 

I have fun jousting with you. Maybe 1 day you will come around on Jimi Hendrix

[Strays Dave]

First, musicians should be interested in music history and a wider variety artists. Lay people know what they like and that's the extent of it. For boomers and earlier generations, music was a much bigger deal than it is today. Kids today have far more entertainment options available.

 

How many boomer non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) know squat about Cole Porter, Irvine Berlin, Basie, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Glen Miller? They were giants in their day. The people you mentioned were really contemporaries, or at most one generation removed (Eddy and Chuck Berry played R&R). You're expecting these kids to appreciate music that's many decades and several generations removed, simply because it was important to you.

 

Why Hendrix? Ellington, for example, is vastly deeper, far more sophisticated and has a songbook of over 3,000 compositions.

 

Busch.

 

Some of your named artists resonated with me. I think someone who's a non-casual musician should introduce himself to a varied diet - musically speaking. Stay curious. And I like Hendrix, but not everybody has to be on the same bandwagon. When first heard a particular version of Ellington and company doing "Mood Indigo" I was hooked. It was the beautiful dissonant harmonies and their voice leading. BTW, I always invoke/credit Billy Strayhorn along with Duke.

 

And not knowing about the Beatles does not invalidate their important music. Once exposed, any musician with ears will hear great invention and craftsmanship. Also innovative audio techniques. But it's not imperative that everyone appreciate them. I say go out and discover.

 

One thing a quick read of the OP article confirmed. My impression that all this current pop music (that I mostly ignore when I hear it) has some sort of synthetic veneer. That whole synth and beats thing.

 

Things will cycle around. I don't really care. I have my own musically diverse diet. And there are gaping holes in it - but it suits me fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[burningbusch]

Here you'll go.

 

"Every top 5 song, from 1958 - 2016, so we can stop arguing about when music was still good."

 

https://pudding.cool/2017/03/music-history/index.html

 

Busch.

[elsongs]

The problem is the general level of musical education

 

And Max Martin.

[Fusker]

I was born a month after the Beatles broke up, my favorite band to this day. My wife was born 5 years after they broke up, her favorite band as well. My daughter was born, uhh, 33 years after the Beatles broke up, she could name 20 Beatles songs easily, oh, and they are her favorite band.

 

Anyhow, anecdotal of course, but they seem to be living on.

 

Oh, Sgt. Peppers sold 72,000 albums on vinyl in 2017.

 

Just sayin'.

[GRollins]

Honestly, I didn't much care for the Beatles when I was younger. It took time for them to grow on me; for me to appreciate the harmonies, etc.

 

In a curious flip, it seems to me that the ones who are saying, "Oh, it's just another thread knocking the new music...the new stuff's perfectly fine," are the grumpy ones--much moreso than the people who feel that the new music is lacking. Interesting.

 

Grey

[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

 

With all the back and forth noise, I wanted to acknowledge this article and validity.

 

The authors are not geezers or grumpy types from the 70's/80's.

 

I estimate they are somewhere ,, late 30's, early 40's. Both are song writers.

Thompson , in particular , has been publishing his work since 1999.

 

Folks like this , with their decades of creating and promoting have a fair grip on the

state of the music creation industry, you name the genre, pop, rock, etc.

 

I did not notice any generational bias by either. They also think Hendrix is timeless

[Music Bird]

The problem is also the instrumentation being the same GM (preferably from the DAW or a soundfont) marimba and calliope/panflute/bottle blow patch in every song, and synth saw stabs with weird sidechaining. It makes everything sound the same. Also, the same 808 bass sounds. The 808 is timeless, but it certainly is better sounding in the 80s and 90s when they were more creative music wise. Plus drum machines have been around since 1975. Check out Rock Your Baby by George McCrae for some old Roland drum machine.

[GRollins]

I was listening to a breakdown of Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne on Rick Beato's YouTube channel yesterday wherein he spent a minute comparing the drum track from Charlemagne, played by Bernard Purdie, vs. the drum track from one of Bruno Mars's efforts, supplied by a drum machine.

 

It was just sad.

 

Grey

[MotiDave]

Whenever i drive my daughter (age 10), i let her listen to the Disney channel. I swear those songs all sound the same.

 

And get off my lawn!

[Song80s]

I was listening to a breakdown of Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne on Rick Beato's YouTube channel yesterday wherein he spent a minute comparing the drum track from Charlemagne, played by Bernard Purdie, vs. the drum track from one of Bruno Mars's efforts, supplied by a drum machine.

 

It was just sad.

 

Grey

 

I believe copy/paste in todays music production is common. It has its place, of course, but overuse is too tempting. It saves time ( of the band/artist) and the label wants speed.

 

Plus there is universal pressure to churn out product,, ' write 300 songs' . Record 4 albums, etc, etc.

 

As a result, there is a flood of mediocrity( don't accuse or shoot me, thank you) of song structure. Yes, I agree, there was mediocrity in the 70's and 80's too. Mediocrity was invented long ago.

 

Today, the result is often slick and clever due to excellent/capable music production software . Slap together a video with attractive and interesting people and there's your hit potential.

 

Bruno Mars, while an excellent performer, the song writing is derivative with some clever twists. Once again, being familiar with music history will reveal the sources. I also see Michael Jackson being imitated. None of this should be news IMO.

 

Yes, I know, some folks that play in cover bands are annoyed by this analysis. Most won't care. Facts are inconvenient things.

[Bobby Simons]

I was listening to a breakdown of Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne on Rick Beato's YouTube channel yesterday wherein he spent a minute comparing the drum track from Charlemagne, played by Bernard Purdie, vs. the drum track from one of Bruno Mars's efforts, supplied by a drum machine.

It was just sad.

LOL, I know. (Though, there are way worse than Bruno Mars out there. He's a pretty talented mofo.) I spent more time wondering just how much time did it take Rick to learn that Carlton solo? Nicely done.

I dig that whole "What Makes This Song Great" series. The one for Rosanna is excellent.

[GRollins]

Michael Jackson is a good example--or counterexample, if you will--to offset some of the accusations being made that I'm "just too old to appreciate what's going on."

 

I clearly remember the Jackson 5. They didn't do much for me, but they were undeniably successful. Then Michael came out as a solo performer and went ballistic. Again, he wasn't my thing, but I can easily see the genius that went into what he did and his music most certainly didn't all sound the same, nor did it sound like anyone else. Though I'm sure someone who's familiar with his chronology will say otherwise, it seemed to me that he hit his stride in the '80s...well past the temporal window that some would argue framed my musical world view.

 

Ditto Dire Straits, although I liked some of their stuff, even though it was "past my time." Mark Knopfler is a bloody wizard at song writing, influencing all sorts of people, including Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull. Listen to the Tull albums pre and post Dire Straits and you'll heard a clear change in the way Anderson wrote his lyrics. He's not alone. Knopfler shook up a lot of people.

 

Grunge, aka "the Seattle sound" had some fine moments.

 

It's been a long, long time since I've heard anything that made that kind of impression on me. Now it's just bland product.

 

One catchy hook does not a lasting song make.

 

Grey

[GRollins]

I spent more time wondering just how much time did it take Rick to learn that Carlton solo?

 

I ain't even gonna try. Carlton is some next level shit and I freely admit that I don't have the chops to keep up with him. I could learn to play the riff, but it's not the ability to reproduce it, it's the creativity to come up with it in the first place that I lack.

 

I've got a style that works for me and I've got some clever tricks (I say this with fingers crossed behind my back that it's actually true) that I use when I play guitar or bass that get me where I want to go. But that Carlton lead riff is scary good. Deeply jazzy, yet not so insanely theoretical and weird that it can't be enjoyed by the average person. My hat's off to the man--that kind of balancing act is difficult to manage.

 

Grey

[AnotherScott]

As a result, there is a flood of mediocrity( don't accuse or shoot me, thank you) of song structure.

I think that is the biggest difference between modern hits and those of generations past. Song structure. One can argue about whether music has or hasn't become less diverse, but I think one trend is obvious... a lot of modern hits are essentially the same from beginning to end. Many songs don't have bridges. The "verses" and "choruses" may be the same... the melody changes, but the underlying chords and rhythm do not.

 

I've wondered whether arpeggiators have contributed to this, as it's easy to build a song over what is essentially a loop. Even if you don't use that loop in the final version, it can still be a compositional tool that leads to repetitiveness.

[AnotherScott]

Mark Knopfler is a bloody wizard at song writing, influencing all sorts of people, including Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull. Listen to the Tull albums pre and post Dire Straits and you'll heard a clear change in the way Anderson wrote his lyrics.

I never noticed it in the lyrics (something I don't tend to pay a lot of attention to), but the Tull album Crest of a Knave represented a big change in the Dire Straits direction, in terms of vocal phrasings especially, and also in overall composition/sound/arrangement. This continued to some extent onto the subsequent two albums (Rock Island, Catfish Rising), but by the subsequent album (Roots to Branches), you hardly hear it at all (except for the last song).

[GRollins]

Knopfler doesn't write "Oooh baby I love you" songs. He writes stories in verse. He paints scenes in exquisite detail. Not unlike Bob Dylan.

 

Compare Telegraph Road or Private Investigations (a personal favorite) from Love Over Gold to...well...anything. The album Making Movies is full of little stories set to music. Hell, even Sultans Of Swing sets a scene, as he tells you about the bar, the patrons, and the members of the band, their day jobs, their attitudes, and how they play. And he does it with grace, making it--damn his hide--look easy. Effortless. The mark of a true genius.

 

Now compare that to the current crop of [fill in your own adjective].

 

And, again, this is a guy who came "after my time."

 

Grey

[AnotherScott]

Knopfler doesn't write "Oooh baby I love you" songs. He writes stories in verse. He paints scenes in exquisite detail.

But Ian Anderson did not get that from Knopfler. Crest of a Knave was 1987, and Tull never wrote "Oooh baby I love you" songs and they started in the 60s. Maybe Knopfler got it from Tull. ;-) Seriously, there are entire Tull albums with nothing even approaching anything like a love song. Probably most of them. Probably part of why they didn't have a lot of mainstream success. ;-) Still, Aqualung and Thick as a Brick were huge sellers, at least.

[bfields]

a lot of modern hits are essentially the same from beginning to end. Many songs don't have bridges. The "verses" and "choruses" may be the same... the melody changes, but the underlying chords and rhythm do not.

 

That's been a useful kick in the pants to me on occasion! I start in on one of those and realize a few cycles in that I've been relying on chord progressions to tell a story for me, and that I can't make a song like that work until I've thought harder about the arrangement.