Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#31

Post by baddox »

existencebox wrote: post #27
joe_the_user wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform. It was only the advent of recorded music that allowed individual performers of popular music to gain specific audiences (with free jazz performers of 1930s being perhaps the first popular recording artists noted for producing "works of art").…

I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists…

And what about the obvious example of classical music?

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#32

Post by existencebox »

baddox wrote: post #31
existencebox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists…

And what about the obvious example of classical music?

Assuming I'm not misunderstanding you, In that classical was meant to be performances by virtuosos for art instead of dance? My counterargument was to show "proof by contradiction" of artists only a few decades earlier that countered the parent posts assertion of the 1930s, but as said, one with more music history could probably cite art vs. dance producers throughout history.

I was hesitant to talk about Mozart/Bach/the other greats because I don't honestly have a deep understanding for how music was societally perceived back then/what the delineations were between pop/"high culture"/dance/"artistic" music (e.g. what the isomorphisms are to the modern day, if there even are any), whereas the earlier 1900's were not so far different from the parent's 1930s claim.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#33

Post by burfog »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #9
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #2

I'm always gonna be fascinated by any analyses like this - but can I just say how incredible tired I am of everything containing "music" combined with "this generation". Everyone, everyone in the industrialised world and well beyond can purchase a device smaller than their palm and listen to literal billions of songs. Noone is stopping you from only listening to "Tibet monk techno punk instrumental remixes" for the r…

Exactly. People complain about how music in the 70's or 80's or whatever was so much better than modern music. That music never went away. It's not like you're no longer allowed to listen to Pink Floyd. Music doesn't have an expiry date.

Some music has an expiry date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_(song)

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/prince/1999_20111205.html

Prince refused to perform it after it expired.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#34

Post by tpm »

21 wrote: post #16

> A single songwriter can specialize in literally the snare-drum. I was an amateur level producer in high school. I had hundred of snare-drum samples, not to mention a lot of way to influence the sound of a particular one. Picking a good snare-drum is very important, it can totally change the character of the song. All of modern music producing it's like that, it's an extremely efficient market, it's really really ha…

> All of modern music producing it's like that

All of modern pop music produced to earn money, perhaps. Otherwise, there are many music styles apart from pop, and many artists who don't use samples at all.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#36

Post by joe_the_user »

existencebox wrote: post #27
joe_the_user wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform. It was only the advent of recorded music that allowed individual performers of popular music to gain specific audiences (with free jazz performers of 1930s being perhaps the first popular recording artists noted for producing "works of art").…

I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists…

Sure, I was talking about specifically popular music. There are many earlier examples of music for the elites being considered art.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#37

Post by fartcannon »

21 wrote: post #15
clay_the_ripper wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is true, although it misses a larger point: that even though we CAN listen to unlimited variety, since the labels control the distribution systems (radio plays, featured music, music sold in big box stores, publicity etc etc) the music they produce becomes inevitably popular. Turn on the radio, walk into Walmart, turn on the tv, watch a movie and you’re not going to hear independent Tibetan chants. You’r…

That's like saying that people are eating bananas and oranges and apples because there is a huge PR campaign to push them, and that this is destroying the chances for less popular fruits. Sure, there is that, but let's not kid ourselves, those fruit are popular because they are actually preferred by a vast majority.

Sure, but what if we only prefer it because we grew up eating it? Chicken/egg/chicken.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#38

Post by joe_the_user »

21 wrote: post #22
joe_the_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't both be true? In both your examples, you can have tremendous diversity, craftsmanship and sophistication within a quite narrow range of parameters. You could say "artistry" (bold statements, individual expression, etc) has been replaced by "design" (sophisticated choices based on following existing trends and extended them just the right amount, standing out not too much, not too little, etc).

> quite narrow range of parameters I think it's just a statistical problem. Target A: you want your song to be liked by 10 thousand people Target B: you want your song to be liked by 1 billion people I don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art.

I think it's just a statistical problem.

A lot of people complain about the narrowness of modern popular music. It's a serious if subjective problem for them. The OP is all about ways to objectively statistically measure a problem that many people subjectively previously complained about.

The implication of the word "art" have generally involved fundamentally unique personal expression. There's expectation that grasping a piece of "true art" will involve something fundamentally surprising.

In contrast, beautiful design certainly involves skill, the designer may even have more skill than the artist. But the implication of design is that you won't experience surprise, just a better version of what you already are familiar with - the sensation of a more beautiful diamond ring or a book laid out more cleanly than you've previously seen.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#39

Post by [deleted] »

joe_the_user wrote: post #38
21 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> quite narrow range of parameters I think it's just a statistical problem. Target A: you want your song to be liked by 10 thousand people Target B: you want your song to be liked by 1 billion people I don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art.

I think it's just a statistical problem. A lot of people complain about the narrowness of modern popular music. It's a serious if subjective problem for them. The OP is all about ways to objectively statistically measure a problem that many people subjectively previously complained about. The implication of the word "art" have generally involved fundamentally unique personal expression. There's expectation that grasp…

[deleted]

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#40

Post by UncleMeat »

existencebox wrote: post #27
joe_the_user wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform. It was only the advent of recorded music that allowed individual performers of popular music to gain specific audiences (with free jazz performers of 1930s being perhaps the first popular recording artists noted for producing "works of art").…

I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists…

Free jazz was developed in the the 50s not the 30s.
Post reply on HN