scientifically analyzing music.

[Professah Tex]

Seems kind of like a contradiction, but this video is so true.

 

[Hornshire]

The decline of musical artistry is not purely a supply-side issue. Producers would be far more willing to take the occasional risk if consumers, and We use the word with the utmost derision, would demand more substance. But the masses don't care about the quality of their music because they don't listen to music as music. It is used simply as background noise (a barrier to shield them from the tremendous woes of the external world,) a distraction (a filler to relieve them of the horrific shortcomings of their internal thoughts,) or, at best, something to dance to. None of which requires any significant measure of critique.

 

Critique, itself, has troubles as well. Very few people can differentiate between what is good and what is entertaining. Fewer still can differentiate between their tastes and their identity. So when someone is confronted with a view that a band they like does not put out high caliber material, it is seen not as a perspective to be explored further, but a personal attack to be shut down. We can't help but think, cynically, that while this later point clearly has an affect on the former, the constant environment of vapidness from the former in turn has an affect on the later, creating a vicious feedback loop.

[Professah Tex]

I for one do demand more substance.. Even in my own music that's purely hobbyistic I buy

leases/fullrights from producers that use actual vinyl and traditional old school recording

techniques. If you watch the video.. (which is pretty fucking long, but only to be conclusive.)

HE also talks about the sky rocketing costs of marketing artists and how recording labels

have resorted to the "mere-exposure" effect to push a song or artist into pop culture.

 

What can you do though..

[Chapinator_X]

The problem with these kind of videos is that they discount how much garbage was pumped out during the age when "music was good", while they only cherry pick the good bands/songs from their era of choice to make their point. I could make a similar video that said that old music is shit by comparing an album from Radiohead or Arcade Fire with Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini.

 

With all the crowing about The Beatles' artisty, it's interesting that he neglected their first album's bubblegum pop vapidness. I'd dare this guy to say She Loves You or Love Me Do is more artistically meaningful than any empty love song One Direction has made.

 

Pop music today is shit, but it's always been shitty. And it's not that hard to find good music today if you're not lazy.

[tsar4]

Because visuals have become more important than the music and talent. 

[Hornshire]

In theory, organize boycotts of stores, radio stations, etc. that play shitty music. Also, don't be friends with people who listen to pop. Basically, be a complete asshole about it all the time.

 

In practice, since that's a lot of effort for an arguably petty cause, just don't listen to pop on your on time. And don't be friends with people who can't have frank conversations about music appreciation. Simply be content with your own integrity.

 

The "problem" is pop. But it's not anything new. Pop has always been the cheapest, easiest, most base appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Beatles, who he uses as a counterpoint of sorts started out with such riveting complexities as "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" (yeah-yeah-yeah), which to be fair are a damn sight better than the present day crap, but in historical context, were still cheap, easy, and base. Because that was the market it was made for. Pop music isn't supposed to be the epitome of talent and creativity. Just like McDonald's isn't supposed to be either healthy or delicious. It's supposed to be accessible.

 

Good music still exists. We don't particularly think the low bar falling lower has any affect on the high bar. Certainly, it takes more effort to find, but again this has always been the case, and is more than worth it. While the advent of technology has made music much more of a commodity, it has also allowed the opening to a much greater expanse of options, and greater control to curate personal libraries.

 

So while for the collective that does not care about quality the current state of musical experience is pathetic, if not lamentable, for the individual that does care, like yourself, it is better than ever. All that is required is that we look for it.

[Professah Tex]

The problem with these kind of videos is that they discount how much garbage was pumped out during the age when "music was good", while they only cherry pick the good bands/songs from their era of choice to make their point. I could make a similar video that said that old music is shit by comparing an album from Radiohead or Arcade Fire with Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini.

 

With all the crowing about The Beatles' artisty, it's interesting that he neglected their first album's bubblegum pop vapidness. I'd dare this guy to say She Loves You or Love Me Do is more artistically meaningful than any empty love song One Direction has made.

 

Pop music today is shit, but it's always been shitty. And it's not that hard to find good music today if you're not lazy.

See again you probably didn't watch enough of the video to even know what he was talking about specifically.

I don't know what group made that 'itsi bitsi tweenie weenie' song, but they still put more musical and lyrical

ability into there shit than over half of the pop stars today do.. and that guy quoted AN ACTUAL scientific study

that was done to measure the rate at which music has gradually declined..so to speak, and honeslty I'd rather

listen to the yellow bikini song than ANYTHING on Justin Beiber's repertoire. 

 

[Chapinator_X]

I saw the whole video. It's easy to take someone else's word on what a study says, but I want to know what albums or songs they used as the basis for their case study. Because if they're comparing "The White Album", "Pet Sounds", or "Dark Side of the Moon" with "Teenage Dream", "The Fame Monster" or "1989" in the study, that'd be as disingenuous as making a study to argue new music is more intelligent because "Morning Phase" had a deeper vocabulary or more musical complexity than "Surfin' Safari".

 

And would the study apply to the Yellow Polka Dot Bikini?  Not every song is going to apply to the study's standards, hence why I'm saying that the studies are relatively subjective about whether ALL of the pop music in the 50's-60's had Shakespeare quality writing. Can people really complain about "Girls Run the World" being the reason why people are getting dumber when I could pull up the lyrics to "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" and see exactly how intellectually stimulating that song is.

 

 

[Professah Tex]

You make valid points.. but I think you are getting a little carried away. We're talking about

'Pop' here... and earlier generations 'Pop' music had way better quality.This study was measuring

facts through timbre or whatever the fuck he was talking about, which is a real term in the scientific

aspect of sound waves.. among other things.

 

You are just tryng to push for some out of context or bias that isnt really present if you ask me.

The legitimate popularity and the actual continuity of a musical group or artist can't be measured

by science.. that's why I said it's a bit of a contradiction in the op.. because the best artists from the

50's are still well known by todays youth, but because it wasn't made popular by the mere exposure

effect or a bunch of 'millenial whoops'. I think Thoughty addressed the problem accurately to be honest.