The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I don't think the mainstream is worse now than decades past. Things that appeal to the broadest possible audience are, by their very nature, on the tame side.

Here's an article to check out from Smithsonian, a reputable source. There is more online all over the place. Part of getting past a problem is accepting there is a problem

Oh, I can't link because I'm new...but Google this article by Smithsonian

science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse

It's a really good article.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

Here's an article to check out from Smithsonian, a reputable source. There is more online all over the place. Part of getting past a problem is accepting there is a problem

Oh, I can't link because I'm new...but Google this article by Smithsonian

science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse

It's a really good article.

Are you referring to the study that used the Million Song Dataset, which has far more older songs than post 1995 songs due to copyright issues? A less representative dataset for the modern music part of the equation versus a more inclusive set for old music smells like bias. Also, even if it was accurate, less timbral range is not necessarily "worse", it just denotes less timbral range. There weren't any differences in melodic or harmonic diversity that they found either, and all three of those things combined form music, so judging it off of one element reeks of p hacking.

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Are you referring to the study that used the Million Song Dataset, which has far more older songs than post 1995 songs due to copyright issues? A less representative dataset for the modern music part of the equation versus a more inclusive set for old music smells like bias. Also, even if it was accurate, less timbral range is not necessarily "worse", it just denotes less timbral range. There weren't any differences in melodic or harmonic diversity that they found either, and all three of those things combined form music, so judging it off of one element reeks of p hacking.

Well, the Smithsonian article linked to a Scientific America article that goes into greater detail about the methodology of the research. According to the Scientific America article,

1) The database is the Million Song Database but of the Million songs featured only 464,411 are between 1955 - 2010 of which were used for the study.

2) So the study covers the period between 1955 - 2010 and doesn't mention any representative sample issues. The sample size appears sufficient.

If you get past that methodology, the study concludes:

1) Timbre quality (defined by the study not as a laymen's term definition of timbre but as sound color, texture, or tone quality. So, essentially, the musical dynamics of a song) has declined since 1960 which, according to the researchers concludes, less diversity in instrumentation (instruments used if at all) and recording technique (production value)

2) Pitch content (defined as harmony, melody, chord progression choice) has also diminished. The study conclude the same progressions etc...are being used as 1960 but with stricter syntax. This means it's a very rigid application of old structures.

3) Songs are louder (loudness not in volume but in production recording) the study concludes there is much less dynamic range, meaning background parts exist less if it all.

So, in laymen terms: songs are statistically shown to decline in instrumentation, production value, creativity of form, rigidity to a few old progressions or forms, and songs cover up any detail with loudness.

That is me summarizing the study in laymen terms. Others can summarize it differently but go to the Smithsonian and Scientific America article for details.

Again, I think what the study concludes is pretty accurate to my experience of recent music. How many Youtube videos are there about, "the three chords of 100 popular songs," or other videos. As far as what I hear in pop music, there are no instruments but a drum beat and some synthesized bass. The music doesn't have a background part, or a subtle theme or counter-point. So, I don't find the study inaccurate. The only thing novel about it, is that it quantified it.

[Zhanteimi]

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by mordwyr

OK, I get your point...but I am artistic as well as analytical, lots of artists are by the way. I can post samples of my poetry and my music if you like. Here is a poem I'm writing off the top of my head:

Kindergaarten Baby Born in the Navy

Her smell was like that of the musk
of a gentrified mare in the August sun
Her skin was like a weathered scare crow
Dilapidated from months of humidity
The Scare crows not confusing it
For anything living
She was old and I was three
And this picture was placed under me
For me to wonder the nature of old age
And what it meant me
Was as frightening and incomprehensible
as Cyrillic to the Average American
During the Cold War

You see, that is poetry. I can create it and music like nothing.

My only goal is to reveal something about why current music is not appealing to most people. In fact, the most popular stations in any market in America are oldies stations--Classic Rock, Classic Rap, Classic Hip-Hop, Mo Town, Funk, R&B. I can look up stats on that. This wasn't true in previous generations and it's not accounted for by old people as I and many of piers and younger listen to is.

So, I say follow the money. There are solutions and people are doing them but I will write about that later.

[Frownland]

If it wasn't appealing to most people, it wouldn't be popular...

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

Here's an article to check out from Smithsonian, a reputable source. There is more online all over the place. Part of getting past a problem is accepting there is a problem

Oh, I can't link because I'm new...but Google this article by Smithsonian

science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse

It's a really good article.

Yeah, that's pretty old news, but it's not really about whether it's good or not. That's entirely subjective.

Originally Posted by Frownland

If it wasn't appealing to most people, it wouldn't be popular...

^Also this.

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Yeah, that's pretty old news, but it's not really about whether it's good or not. That's entirely subjective.


^Also this.

Well, look it's tough to get people to think or to think differently I get that. But, but, but some things to consider:

1) In the eighties and nineties, before Internet, a tape or cd cost about 12.00. Well, that is about how much they cost now and inflation has gone up considerably since then. So, an average artist makes a lot less now--not keeping up with inflation--then they did back then. The cut in money comes out of somewhere and that is in the ingredients used, make a product cheaper to make up the loss.

2) We repeatedly hear movie block buster costing hundreds of million to make and many, if not most, have a huge payout in terms of billions made off of paying customers. The movie business is still in the business of investing huge some of money to make a good product, the demand is there. Also, movie ticket prices have gone up from around $6.00 in that time to now around $15.00. Keeping up with and surpassing inflation. Why does music not have the same model?

3) I'm not making an argument of what is good or not. I'm making the argument that it's OK to demand better ingredients to make better product. We, the general public, don't have to be a shill for the record company (shill is an important word to look up because there are a quite a few shills out there.) We don't have to make excuses for them. They want to make music as inexpensively as possible and appeal to less picky children then they want to invest in expensive instrumentation, production value, lyricists, artists and the like. Why is it not OK to demand better ingredients? Its not a matter of tastes but of expense. I don't feel a need to make excuses for the record company.

I'll write what I see as solutions emerging and why there may, may, may be better music in the future.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

Well, look it's tough to get people to think or to think differently I get that. But, but, but some things to consider:

1) In the eighties and nineties, before Internet, a tape or cd cost about 12.00. Well, that is about how much they cost now and inflation has gone up considerably since then. So, an average artist makes a lot less now--not keeping up with inflation--then they did back then. The cut in money comes out of somewhere and that is in the ingredients used, make a product cheaper to make up the loss.

You also don't need a big production studio to produce and release your own music anymore, so homogeneous statements like these aren't really applicable.

2) We repeatedly hear movie block buster costing hundreds of million to make and many, if not most, have a huge payout in terms of billions made off of paying customers. The movie business is still in the business of investing huge some of money to make a good product, the demand is there. Also, movie ticket prices have gone up from around $6.00 in that time to now around $15.00. Keeping up with and surpassing inflation. Why does music not have the same model?

There's good music being made still, surprisingly, so your demand is supplied hugely. Also, the blockbuster method does not mean that the films are quality.

3) I'm not making an argument of what is good or not. I'm making the argument that it's OK to demand better ingredients to make better product. We, the general public, don't have to be a shill for the record company (shill is an important word to look up because there are a quite a few shills out there.) We don't have to make excuses for them. They want to make music as inexpensively as possible and appeal to less picky children then they want to invest in expensive instrumentation, production value, lyricists, artists and the like. Why is it not OK to demand better ingredients? Its not a matter of tastes but of expense. I don't feel a need to make excuses for the record company.

I'll write what I see as solutions emerging and why there may, may, may be better music in the future.

Expensive =/= good. I've played 45 dollar guitars that sound far better than 3000 dollar guitars. And I'd also like to mention once again that there's too much good music out there to even listen to. You describe a non-issue here.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

Well, look it's tough to get people to think or to think differently I get that. But, but, but some things to consider:

I agree. There have always been people who try "prove" their opinion that music was better in the good old days.

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

1) In the eighties and nineties, before Internet, a tape or cd cost about 12.00. Well, that is about how much they cost now and inflation has gone up considerably since then. So, an average artist makes a lot less now--not keeping up with inflation--then they did back then. The cut in money comes out of somewhere and that is in the ingredients used, make a product cheaper to make up the loss.

The majority of music purchases these days are downloads and as a result there's far less money lost on production and shipping costs. So this is kind of a non point.

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

2) We repeatedly hear movie block buster costing hundreds of million to make and many, if not most, have a huge payout in terms of billions made off of paying customers. The movie business is still in the business of investing huge some of money to make a good product, the demand is there. Also, movie ticket prices have gone up from around $6.00 in that time to now around $15.00. Keeping up with and surpassing inflation. Why does music not have the same model?

Are movies better now than they were in the 80s or 90s? Is that your argument?

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

3) I'm not making an argument of what is good or not. I'm making the argument that it's OK to demand better ingredients to make better product. We, the general public, don't have to be a shill for the record company (shill is an important word to look up because there are a quite a few shills out there.) We don't have to make excuses for them. They want to make music as inexpensively as possible and appeal to less picky children then they want to invest in expensive instrumentation, production value, lyricists, artists and the like. Why is it not OK to demand better ingredients? Its not a matter of tastes but of expense. I don't feel a need to make excuses for the record company.

Excuses for who? If I like music, I listen to it, go see it, and generally support it. If I don't, I don't. It's not very complicated.