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

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#51

Post by dizzystar »

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.

Those people either have very short memories or believe the hype. A lot of the stuff outside the top 40 is barely passable. Sheesh, even top 40 is full of trash, and that's picking the "best" 40 songs over a 10 year span.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#52

Post by skybrian »

joe_the_user wrote: post #36
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…

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

Hmm, how about church music as another example of popular music not produced by elites. (Perhaps more respectable, but not necessarily elite.) Or how about work songs? Ragtime? Brass bands?

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#53

Post by sonnyblarney »

Not just diversity, but quality.

There are many very objective metrics we can use, but even by many creative metrics - it's worse.

Lyrically: have you ever listened to what 2Pac or Biggie were saying? They were rhyming. There was an obvious lyrical flow. Now compare to Lil' Wayne who literally spouts gibberish. Lil wayne 'says words' to 'a beat' and that's it.

Some people point out that 'there's always been bad music' i.e. if you go back to the top 40 in 1977 or whatever it's litered with derivative crap - but - there were many 'stand outs' of great music - even great pop music. For example, Michael Jackson was not exactly an exalted artist in the purest sense, but he was a genius pop artists. I fully respect Beyonce as a hard working and creative entertainer of our times, but I think in 10 years from now, you'll more likely hear a Michael Jackson song than a Beyonce song.

Underlying issues are partly commercialization, but also - 'visualization'. Remember 'video killed the radio star?' - well YouTube is the new MTV and 'how it looks' is as important than 'how it sounds'. Pop stars now generally are more attractive.

Also - it's just too easy to press a button and make noise - people confuse the creativity behind that with raw expression. I saw a band recently that had 2 guys playing 'a computer' and it was interesting, but ultimately very empty. The lack of character has me aching for good, live Jazz. :)

I love Kanye, but it's really hard to get fully behind someone standing there with a microphone, it's like a big Kareoke show.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#54

Post by sonnyblarney »

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 don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art"

Technically you could say thins, but in reality I would say there is definitely 'less art'.

Katey Perry is a product, not an artist, listening to her reminds me of walking into a nice, clean, new McDonald's.

Sure there is 'art' even in Product Marketing and Segmentation ... but funny enough, most of this music does not last.

I have nothing against great and hyper-specialized production, but it's usually done in an industrial manner.

The same thing is often done with food ingredients: there are people hired by processed food manufacturers to get the 'ingredient mix' just perfect for taste - and this tends to commoditize products across the board.

The article makes a good case for this, i.e. why hyper specialization and product orientation leads to less diversity.

Example from another industry: as films become more 'global' - they have to be more bland and generic, and 'lowest common denominator'. International audiences don't 'get' American cultural cues.

Do you know why the Transformers movies make absolutely no sense? There is basically no plot. Just 2 hours of a long, ridiculous action sequence? Because they are catering to 'everyone' and 'everyone' is borderline illiterate, and doesn't grasp cultural references outside of their little region etc. etc..

Katey Perry to me is the 'Transformers' of Music.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#55

Post by joe_the_user »

skybrian wrote: post #52
joe_the_user wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hmm, how about church music as another example of popular music not produced by elites. (Perhaps more respectable, but not necessarily elite.) Or how about work songs? Ragtime? Brass bands?

Indeed, some popular music wasn't produced for dancing but most of that wasn't considered art.

It's not really some simplistic generality. The larger point is audio reproduction and the increased production of commodities is what allowed the uniqueness of a kind of musician to be their selling point, once a musician was "selling himself/herself" rather than being a paid player.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#56

Post by cutler »

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.

It's not a question of availability. It's about the quality, creativity and originality of the music. The late 60s, 70s and 80s produced a stream of musical talent the likes of which we haven't seen since. Tech has played a part in that decline though the early pioneers of techno-pop, such as Gary Numan and John Foxx were genuinely creative. Ask yourself, if you think all this is merely relative, where is the David Bowie, the Bryan Ferry and the Elton John of this decade? That's just 3. I could list 100 more from those 3 decades who tower above anything coming out of the music industry today.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#57

Post by soundwave106 »

dizzystar wrote: post #49
baddox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about the obvious example of classical music?

One only needs to translate all that Latin to figure out most of it means a form of dance. Classical music was pop for it's time. People danced, drank, and even had massive riots when a controversial composer came to town.

Music for the church (often written by the same composers) is a counterpoint to this. I doubt too many people are dancing during requiems and masses. :) Also, there is music as the background to a theatrical performance (opera being the classic example of that).

However if we really want to compare the most popular pieces of each time, we really can't look at the "art classical". Most "art classical" wasn't even the most popular back then, from what I gather (though occasionally an "art classical" composer did make a popular tune that became well known).

It's difficult to find "top sales" lists of the old sheet music songs (which is probably the best parallel to modern record charts), but one someone put together for the US (https://thetop100songsofalltime.com/top-100-songs-of-the-189...) has, for the link example of the 1890s, mostly popular short tunes (in the 1890s, "tin pan alley" style).

Of what I recognize (there's a lot of songs on this list that frankly seems to have disappeared over time), there's some that probably would be the dance of its time. I wouldn't say all I recognize is "music to dance to" mainly because there are definitely some ballads among the tunes, as well as some Sousa marches, and songs which are probably more "sing-alongs". I'm guessing that most of these songs aren't exactly "works of art" in the way the original poster intended. :) But they were light entertainment for the time (ala pop today), and that's fine. Modern pop music also has some ballads that do not necessarily function as dance music, too.

I think the biggest difference between music then and music now, is that the dominant way to make a living was to compose sheet music for other musicians to play. Recordings quite literally changed all of this.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#58

Post by cma »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #53

Not just diversity, but quality. There are many very objective metrics we can use, but even by many creative metrics - it's worse. Lyrically: have you ever listened to what 2Pac or Biggie were saying? They were rhyming. There was an obvious lyrical flow. Now compare to Lil' Wayne who literally spouts gibberish. Lil wayne 'says words' to 'a beat' and that's it. Some people point out that 'there's always been bad music…

> Underlying issues are partly commercialization, but also - 'visualization'. Remember 'video killed the radio star?' - well YouTube is the new MTV and 'how it looks' is as important than 'how it sounds'. Pop stars now generally are more attractive.

You had opera and musicals long before MTV and Youtube. And people mostly didn't hide their faces during live performances before or during the current period of recorded music.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#59

Post by ThomPete »

grfdfserhsh wrote: post #43
ThomPete wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second you put music on “cd” its not art but a product. The idea of the musician as an artist is highly inaccurate.

I don't see anything in your comment but cynicism. Why can't it be a product AND art?

It can but it's mostly not especially in the pop music sector and anyone who works in the music industry knows this. Most of the so-called artist in the pop industry are assets for the industry not artists.

I see I get some downvotes for saying this, none the less it's true. And I say this as an former full-time now hobby musician/songwriter myself.

Re: The Musical Diversity of Pop Songs

#60

Post by dizzystar »

soundwave106 wrote: post #57
dizzystar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One only needs to translate all that Latin to figure out most of it means a form of dance. Classical music was pop for it's time. People danced, drank, and even had massive riots when a controversial composer came to town.

Music for the church (often written by the same composers) is a counterpoint to this. I doubt too many people are dancing during requiems and masses. :) Also, there is music as the background to a theatrical performance (opera being the classic example of that). However if we really want to compare the most popular pieces of each time, we really can't look at the "art classical". Most "art classical" wasn't even the…

A lot of things we call classical today was actually pretty low down and vulgar music. Here's a bit of Mozart:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/55247/3-dirty-songs-mozart

Chopin, for example, wrote 59 marzukas, which is music for a traditional Polish dance of the same name.

Beethoven wrote many dance songs, especially waltzes.

Albeniz, especially wrote music derived from traditional music. Suite Espanola is a wonderful exploration here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Española_No._1,_Op._47

I could go all night on this topic, but the point is that, although we don't recognize the music as dance, it was to the people of that time.

Post reply on HN