Music is "scientifically" proven to sound the same in recent years

[bara]

I think what it boils down to is that the truly good and great songs aren't really appreciated at the time they are released. They become really popular when the people listen to them again a few years later and can really put them in perspective.

[Nyoibo]

This thread made me think about this song

[ThePhoneGoddess]

I think you're confusing pop music and popular music. Pop music is a specific genre that's designed to appeal to a mass audience, while popular music is anything that is, well, popular at the current time. Powerful guitar solos, amazing instrumental bridges, and thoughtful lyrics might be found in popular music, but they are definitely not a part of the genre known as pop music.

Popular music can include rock and roll, R&B, folk-rock, rap, and lots more genres. Radio stations used to play a mixture of pop and popular music, but now they mostly play 1 or 2 specific genres and stick to it; like classic rock, or rap plus R&B, or folk-rock plus country. Pop music, which is defined as a genre that is professionally packaged and produced to appeal to a mass audience, has become more and more homogenous because the music labels are trying to reach as wide an audience as possible.

If you're looking for quality music, you have to stop assuming that pop is still being mixed with good popular music. The internet has fundamentally altered the music industry: genres are now mostly kept separated, and you have to go after the specific genres you like.

[Skunkle]

I'll just say this: Every generation for most of the 20th century has considered all the music by the following generation to be "worthless crap" and "empty fluff" that "all sounds the same" and is nowhere near as good as the good ol' music from the past.

To those who grew up on 80s and 90s pop like Michael Jackson and Madonna, the modern pop by similar acts such as Lady Gaga sucks. 80s kids hated on 90s rap, fondly remembering the old-school hip hop. To those raised on the 70s, 80s "new wave" was junk, even despite the backlash on disco by the same people who were dancin' to it a few years back. To those from the 60s, rock'n roll took a nosedive afterward with metal and harder rock. To those who grew up on orchestral music in the 40s and 50s, rock was where music failed. To those who remembered the sweet old stuff from the 20s and 30s, the doo-wop and sh-bop music of the 50s was immoral and valueless. And so on into the past.

I'm quite certain that, in the next fifteen to twenty years, people will be looking back fondly on Katy Perry and Lady Gaga, comparing them with their pop predecessors, and complaining that music went nowhere good after that.

Me, I just listen to what I like, don't listen to what I don't like, and leave it at that. Pop has always been pop - it's nostalgia and/or personal tastes that determine whether music is good, okay, or worthless, and then only to said listener. Just because a whole bunch of listeners feel the same way doesn't necessarily assign a concrete value to a genre or artist; plenty of older people thought the Beatles absolutely sucked when they were popular with the teen crowd, and now we look back fondly on silly nonsense like "I Am The Walrus" and cheerful but hollow fluff like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" as music that changed a generation.

[Mytical]

I fall into the "I like what I like, and don't what I don't" crowd. Doesn't matter if it is popular, or something only 3 people have heard of..and two are in the band. Of course the easiest way for me to hear a song is if it is popular...so yes the vast majority of my song list falls into the popular area. I like Mozart, Ride of the Valkaries (spelling), and other classical music. I listen to Pantara, Nine inch nails, and Ozzy. Everything from classical to heavy metal, has at least a few songs I like in the genre, even rap..(you may throw tomatoes if you wish now).

Pop does have a limited range of music, because as mentioned it is designed to get the attention of the most people. Doesn't matter to me. For all I care every other person on the planet could love it, or hate it, means absolutely nada to me. I like some from Gaga, I like some from Katy Perry. Black Eyed Peas, Pink, Evanescence, etc. A lot of people let others decide what they like, before they try it. Either because it is not 'popular' or because it is. Listen, then decide. If you don't like it, it is all good. If we all liked the same thing, life would be boring.

As for the (how do I put this) fact that a lot of songs have a familiar sound? Think about how long music has been around. Think about the sounds possible by most instruments. It's just like what is said about movies..all the ideas have been taken..are you sure the original sound you think you hear on your favorite song is ALL original? Don't be too sure.

[HYHYBT]

genres are now mostly kept separated, and you have to go after the specific genres you like.

Which is going to be disastrous for music, long-term. Without exposure to some level of variety, it's much harder to discover something new you like that isn't related to something you already know about. I imagine the problem is far worse growing up with music separated like that.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Which is going to be disastrous for music, long-term. Without exposure to some level of variety, it's much harder to discover something new you like that isn't related to something you already know about. I imagine the problem is far worse growing up with music separated like that.

I have actually found it to be the opposite. I don't listen to the radio specifically to find things I haven't heard anymore, not like I did as a kid in the eighties. If I put the radio on it's to have some background noise. Now I search for music online, because the variety is infinitely greater; many millennial kids do this as well. Online I have access to music which isn't even available to US radio stations. I can listen to African pop music if I want to, or Asian thrash metal, or Brazilian funk, or a hundred other things you can't buy on CD in the US. Once I realized that the music industry has largely moved to the online world, I really had my eyes opened up. There are some fantastic websites out there for finding good music.

[TheHuckster]

I fall into the "I like what I like, and don't what I don't" crowd. Doesn't matter if it is popular, or something only 3 people have heard of..and two are in the band. Of course the easiest way for me to hear a song is if it is popular...so yes the vast majority of my song list falls into the popular area. I like Mozart, Ride of the Valkaries (spelling), and other classical music. I listen to Pantara, Nine inch nails, and Ozzy. Everything from classical to heavy metal, has at least a few songs I like in the genre, even rap..(you may throw tomatoes if you wish now).

Pop does have a limited range of music, because as mentioned it is designed to get the attention of the most people. Doesn't matter to me. For all I care every other person on the planet could love it, or hate it, means absolutely nada to me. I like some from Gaga, I like some from Katy Perry. Black Eyed Peas, Pink, Evanescence, etc. A lot of people let others decide what they like, before they try it. Either because it is not 'popular' or because it is. Listen, then decide. If you don't like it, it is all good. If we all liked the same thing, life would be boring.

Your tastes are similar to mine. My playlist is diverse, with artists ranging from Mozart and Beethoven to Eminem and everything in between.

As for the (how do I put this) fact that a lot of songs have a familiar sound? Think about how long music has been around. Think about the sounds possible by most instruments. It's just like what is said about movies..all the ideas have been taken..are you sure the original sound you think you hear on your favorite song is ALL original? Don't be too sure.

Clearly every form of art has some form of inspiration. Nobody composes in a vacuum, but good artists take whatever inspires them and creates something original. This is true not only in music, but in architecture, sculpture, and paint.

My criticism is more on how pop artists today more than before seem to be creating from the same formula: Take 5 of the same chords, arrange them however you like (this is the sole "creative" part), put them to a 4/4 beat, and use a synthesizer and base guitar. Lather rinse repeat.

To me this is the musical equivalent of a suburban development that uses that same blueprint that was created in 1998. Or one of those "paint by number" books.

Yes, I understand there were pop artists like this before. I just feel as though it's simply more prevalent now than before. If that cracked.com article is true, I could be mistaken. I guess I'll see in 20 years when this becomes "oldies" and I listen to the radio.

[ExRetailDrone]

There is one thing about pop music today that I think is much, much worse than pop music from other decades. Autotune. I didn't like pop music for the most part in the 90s either, but at least they could sing. Now, you can't even tell if the person can really sing or not, since the sound is so fake >.<

[Nekojin]

There is one thing about pop music today that I think is much, much worse than pop music from other decades. Autotune. I didn't like pop music for the most part in the 90s either, but at least they could sing. Now, you can't even tell if the person can really sing or not, since the sound is so fake >.<

Autotune's been around since at least the late 90's. Listen to the Cher song Believe for an example.

And I remember one time Mark & Brian had a recording on their show - a raw audio recording of Brittney Spears in the studio, pre-tuning. She was so incredibly off-key, it was painful to listen to.

[Skunkle]

Thing about Autotune and its similar programs is that they've been around since the 90s, and they've been used in all sorts of ways. There are good ways to use such software. Right now, the trend in popular music is to use electronic tuning to create voices that hold a note flawlessly for a few seconds with no variance, or jump from note to note with precision. It's not a bad thing inherently; it all comes down to the sound they're shooting for, and whether or not their target audience enjoys it. R&B singers, vocalists like Whitney Houston, and others such as Aaron Neville, have been doing a sort of warbly thing where their voice hits a lot of different pitches in succession at the end of a held note, sort of the vocal version of a trilled note but with more complexity, and there's a 'thing' right now for doing that electronically, doing things the human voice can't easily do, or can't do at all. (Extreme version: see the operatic alien vocalist in "The Fifth Element.") "Some Nights" by Fun uses autotuning to do that, too, and has a spot where they make the singer's voice crack slightly on a high note as though it's real.

Yes, the problem with autotuning is that you don't know who really can stay on pitch and who can't. Look at the king of autotune, Justin Bieber; the stuff he did that got him noticed in the first place wasn't aututuned. He can carry a tune very well. I still don't personally care for his style, but he CAN sing. I suspect some of the Disney-pushed youth popstars may be simply okay singers made better with tuning software.

Anyone care to guess what the next big trend might be in pop music?

[Jaden]

The thing about autotuning is that I'd rather hear somebody sing off key or miss a note and still have some emotion in their voice than sound like a robot. That's pretty much how it's used in modern pop music, and don't even get me started on hipsters using it "ironically." That's even worse. I'm looking at you, Bon Iver and Sufjan Stevens (and I quite like Sufjan Stevens when he isn't doing such things).

[Eddie the 'Ead]

Whenever I go to my friend's house, it seems like she always has the Music Choice rock station on the TV. And I kid you not, pretty much most of the bands they play on that station sound the exact same to me. I can never tell the difference between bands or songs

[Fire_on_High]

The thing about autotuning is that I'd rather hear somebody sing off key or miss a note and still have some emotion in their voice than sound like a robot.

This, this, a thousand times this. There's a female Japanese singer who does vocal arranges from a series of games I like, and her "studio" stuff is technically flawless, but unemotional.

Well, one time at a con, someone got her drunk and handed her a mike....recorded the results. It's the VERY best version of each of those songs I've ever heard, even with the occasional offkey moment....INCREDIBLE emotion. She's having a blast and singing her heart out and IT SHOWS!

[wolfie]

The thing about autotuning is that I'd rather hear somebody sing off key or miss a note and still have some emotion in their voice than sound like a robot.

There's a female Japanese singer who does vocal arranges from a series of games I like, and her "studio" stuff is technically flawless, but unemotional.

Well, one time at a con, someone got her drunk and handed her a mike....recorded the results. It's the VERY best version of each of those songs I've ever heard, even with the occasional offkey moment....INCREDIBLE emotion. She's having a blast and singing her heart out and IT SHOWS!

Best description of this I've seen is in AD&D 2nd edition (can't recall if it's PHB or Complete Bard's Handbook), where it explains the difference between a Bard with a singing or musical instrument proficiency rating of 14 and another character class with a proficiency rating of 20. The other character class will be technically perfect, but the bard (in the context of this thread, person not using autotune) will be the better entertainer because they tailor their performance to the particular audience, even if they do hit a couple wrong notes.