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

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

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.

Still doesn't counteract a misrepresentative sample of modern music. If you compare 50 songs from 1950 to 10 songs from 2010, your study is flawed.

[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 Frownland

Still doesn't counteract a misrepresentative sample of modern music. If you compare 50 songs from 1950 to 10 songs from 2010, your study is flawed.

OK, you don't agree with the methodology and you have a valid concern about sampling bias. I'll post right away another study that shows that no.1 singles written recently are written at the third grade level. I can't post links yet but there are a few sources discussing that the average lyrics for hits are at third grade level. I would post a link, but I can't yet. A google search of

Study lyrics at third grade level

Will find them.

Originally Posted by Frownland

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

To me, both studies combine show an accurate picture of current music. Now, I don't think it's because people are dumber but, but, but it seems the record company is marketing to children--not fickle teens, or curmudgeon young adults, but children. Children are probably the most reliable income stream out there and, and they are not as picky as adults. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of avid listeners are in or about the third grade with their parents listening along.

Just the other day a neighbor of mine was blasting Taylor Swifts, "Shake it off." The thought occurred to me, "wait, this is a children's song." Everything about it sounded like some motivational song for kids. The music is catchy, it sounds nice, but it is in fact a children's song...

But, but, but my neighbor didn't pay for the song, he had his Spotify account attached to his speakers through his Ipad. Were this the eighties and music wasn't essentially free, I'm not certain how many adults would plop down $12.00 - $14.00 for the tape or CD.

Again, out here in Southern California where I live, I don't meet too many Pop or mainstream music listeners. They exist for sure, in America and abroad (where they probably don't know what the lyrics are saying anyway). But it's kind of like trying to find Kardashian fans, I've never met one and they seem to get quite a bit of hate on Facebook...so, whoever these people are they are just the easy money (kids, parents of kids...etc...)

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

OK, you don't agree with the methodology and you have a valid concern about sampling bias. I'll post right away another study that shows that no.1 singles written recently are written at the third grade level. I can't post links yet but there are a few sources discussing that the average lyrics for hits are at third grade level. I would post a link, but I can't yet. A google search of

Study lyrics at third grade level

Will find them.

This is nothing new and doesn't say anything about the quality of the music or lyrics. The Old Man and the Sea and The Giver are two novels that use very simple language and style while still being brilliant, for example.

To me, both studies combine show an accurate picture of current music. Now, I don't think it's because people are dumber but, but, but it seems the record company is marketing to children--not fickle teens, or curmudgeon young adults, but children. Children are probably the most reliable income stream out there and, and they are not as picky as adults. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of avid listeners are in or about the third grade with their parents listening along.

Just the other day a neighbor of mine was blasting Taylor Swifts, "Shake it off." The thought occurred to me, "wait, this is a children's song." Everything about it sounded like some motivational song for kids. The music is catchy, it sounds nice, but it is in fact a children's song...

But, but, but my neighbor didn't pay for the song, he had his Spotify account attached to his speakers through his Ipad. Were this the eighties and music wasn't essentially free, I'm not certain how many adults would plop down $12.00 - $14.00 for the tape or CD.

Again, out here in Southern California where I live, I don't meet too many Pop or mainstream music listeners. They exist for sure, in America and abroad (where they probably don't know what the lyrics are saying anyway). But it's kind of like trying to find Kardashian fans, I've never met one and they seem to get quite a bit of hate on Facebook...so, whoever these people are they are just the easy money (kids, parents of kids...etc...)

And then you realize that your own opinion isn't the same as the casual music listener, which makes up the majority of people. Here's a popular kid's song from the 70s.

[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.

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Frownland

This is nothing new and doesn't say anything about the quality of the music or lyrics. The Old Man and the Sea and The Giver are two novels that use very simple language and style while still being brilliant, for example.

Well, The Old Man and the Sea is not written at a third grade level. I am not familiar with the Giver. Using Steinbeck is a bad example, I minored in English lit. The appeal of Steinbeck is that he was one of the few modern writers who was appealing to different publics.

If you look at most of Steinbeck's works (the Grapes of Wrath, of Mice and Men, Tortilla Flats) the works can be read in multiple ways and appreciated by multiple audiences. For example, the general public with a low reading comprehension could just read for the story much like a film. But, but, but for college level readers and English enthusiasts Steinbeck is a genius in his rhetorical, metaphorical, symbolic use and, and, and his works largely allude to previous Western Classics. The deeper meaning is the true draw and power of Steinbeck, not the story plot.

And then you realize that your own opinion isn't the same as the casual music listener, which makes up the majority of people. Here's a popular kid's song from the 70s.

Well, no, that is not a children's song. Here are the lyrics. Do you need me to explain it to you. Like a lot of Funk and R&B it is social criticism and that is very profound. I can explain the lyrics to you if you like. Also, look up the creative voices behind Funk and R&B there were quite a few brilliant minds behind it. If you haven't heard Bobby Blue Bland's Ain't No Love in the Heart of the City, a lot of brilliant creative minds behind it. :

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk
I'm a woman's man: no time to talk
Music loud and women warm, I've been kicked around
Since I was born
And now it's all right, it's OK
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive

Well now, I get low and I get high
And if I can't get either, I really try
Got the wings of heaven on my shoes
I'm a dancin' man and I just can't lose
You know it's all right, it's ok
I'll live to see another day
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk
I'm a woman's man: no time to talk
Music loud and women warm
I've been kicked around since I was born
And now it's all right, it's ok
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah
I'm stayin' alive


The above is poetry and probably best understood at a college level. Do you want me to compare it Taylor Swifts song to see the difference?

[Frownland]

Nah you're right, Old Man and the Sea is written at a fourth grade level. Look at the plain language and simple syntax, if your fourth grader can't understand it then you probably have more problems to deal with than them reading.

The Bee Gees sound like something poppy and simple that children would like so it's obviously, they make children's music.