Is music becoming more homogenized?

[Oriphiel]

I read an interesting article that brought up many points about music, and the science behind it. One point that was brought up was that music is becoming more standard, meaning that less artists are seperating themselves from each other. More artists than ever are using the same chord progressions, vocal patterns, etc. Do you all think the article is flawed, and missed something vital? Or is music really becoming more, to put it bluntly, "boring"?

Also, apparently the years of mid 1960s were the time of greatest musical variety. Makes sense, considering the garage and psych movements kicked off punk and metal, funk and motown went mainstream, and new genres from abroad like ska hit their stride. The Beatles championed the merseybeat, the Rolling Stones kept the blues kicking, Ohio Express kept pop interesting and just a little dirty, etc.

Here is the article: 5 Ways Your Taste in Music is Scientifically Programmed | Cracked.com

And here is the website that collected the data used to analyze the trends of music: Million Song Dataset | scaling MIR research

[Pet_Sounds]

Is he including independent artists in his analysis? 'Cause I agree that the pop of today is simpler than the pop of the '60s, but the indie scene is full of complex music.

[Necromancer]

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Also, apparently the years of mid 1960s were the time of greatest musical variety.

Wouldn't that be the 1980s?

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

I read an interesting article that brought up many points about music, and the science behind it. One point that was brought up was that music is becoming more standard, meaning that less artists are seperating themselves from each other. More artists than ever are using the same chord progressions, vocal patterns, etc. Do you all think the article is flawed, and missed something vital? Or is music really becoming more, to put it bluntly, "boring"?

Also, apparently the years of mid 1960s were the time of greatest musical variety. Makes sense, considering the garage and psych movements kicked off punk and metal, funk and motown went mainstream, and new genres from abroad like ska hit their stride. The Beatles championed the merseybeat, the Rolling Stones kept the blues kicking, Ohio Express kept pop interesting and just a little dirty, etc.

Here is the article: 5 Ways Your Taste in Music is Scientifically Programmed | Cracked.com

And here is the website that collected the data used to analyze the trends of music: Million Song Dataset | scaling MIR research

Looks like the article is about pop music specifically rather than music in general.

[Necromancer]

I would think the 80s contained a much larger variety a pop music to choose from than the mid 60s did.

Just saying.

[Oriphiel]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Looks like the article is about pop music specifically rather than music in general.

It included all of the major genres (pop, rock, metal, hip hop, etc.).

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

It included all of the major genres (pop, rock, metal, hip hop, etc.).

According to article:

"The Million Song Dataset uses algorithms to analyze pop songs recorded since 1955."

This says to me they're only talking about pop music—which of course includes pop rock, pop metal, pop hip hop, etc.—so only really a sliver of all music being produced. I also question their claim about the 60s having the most musical variety. The data they used only starts in 1955 so they're looking at a fairly small window of time.

[grindy]

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

I read an interesting article that brought up many points about music, and the science behind it. One point that was brought up was that music is becoming more standard, meaning that less artists are seperating themselves from each other. More artists than ever are using the same chord progressions, vocal patterns, etc. Do you all think the article is flawed, and missed something vital? Or is music really becoming more, to put it bluntly, "boring"?

Also, apparently the years of mid 1960s were the time of greatest musical variety. Makes sense, considering the garage and psych movements kicked off punk and metal, funk and motown went mainstream, and new genres from abroad like ska hit their stride. The Beatles championed the merseybeat, the Rolling Stones kept the blues kicking, Ohio Express kept pop interesting and just a little dirty, etc.

Here is the article: 5 Ways Your Taste in Music is Scientifically Programmed | Cracked.com

And here is the website that collected the data used to analyze the trends of music: Million Song Dataset | scaling MIR research

Ah, yes...Cracked. So many hours blissfully wasted there.

I think music and tastes are actually getting more diverse and because of this pop music, which is the lowest common denominator, has to get even lower to still attract customers.

[Trollheart]

Surely that's the whole point of progressive and experimental music? Aren't artists like, say, Tom Waits or Philip Glass or David Byrne always experimenting with new ways to make music, trying out new instruments and rhythms? Didn't Peter Gabriel, Sting, Paul Simon and others introduce the world at large to African and other ethnic music, and incorporate it into theirs? Surely not all artistes did or do this?

You CAN be generic I guess, just follow a formula if you want hits, but many artistes outside the mainstream are doing their best to stay well away from anything that sounds contrived or copied.

[ladyislingering]

basic ingredients of a modern pop song:

- party party party
- mention of "dance floor"
- distorted vocals
- loud electronic noises