Yes but what is good about today's musical variety is that it is easier than ever to reach using outlets like YouTube, Spotify, Sound cloud, Band camp, and especially Pandora who has actually turned me on to a few artists over the years I've used it. For those willing to look a tiny bit music is less homogeneous than ever and there is so much fragmentation that the amount of unique and creative music is almost overwhelming. I think with radio almost dead as it is that will soon become the norm for bands not following the formula to get more attention.

There's also people like her though... A lot of them... Who really only listen to music in their car or a particular radio station. Its a shame with all this great new technology, but hey, at least us weirdos benefit.

I would think bands are more independent and free to express themselves with creativity more so these days than prior decades before. I get the impression that a lot of the modern rock and metal orientated bands are trying to develop a recipe that leads their music to a more mainstream audience. I've noticed a number of different bands that are really pushing the envelope and currently experimenting with their music. ScarThe Martyr (Joey Jordison) is a band that is raw sounding and hasn't fully evolved their style, but at least its something other than listening to Five Finger Death Punch all the time.

Is music becoming more homogenized?
Just ask Neutral Milk Hotel. http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/dri...nking-milk.gif

I thought that the early 80s were more experimental and had a bigger variety. All the later 80s stuff kinda lean more to be pop. Hair Metal, R&B and Pop all had more and more of a big studio production sound as the 80s progress.

You forgot that the word "Girl" (or occasionally "boy") must be mentioned at least twice in the song...
Just as long as they do it behind closed doors, eh? ;) Consenting adults may listen to anything they want to, I just don't want to see them doing it. I'm sure you think the same about my prog rock and AOR. :rofl:
My sister is like that too. She'll love a song, ask about other songs by the band. You buy her the album and she'll just listen to the song she knows. The band get a new album out, she's not interested. A real hummingbird when it comes to music. You should have seen her with the music channels when she could see properly --- zap (two beats of a drum) zap (three notes on a guitar) zap (half a verse of a song) zap (ad break) zap (ad break) zap (dance music bass) zap zap zap. It often amazed me how she could make up her mind she didn't like a song in a second or two and move on. Used to make me dizzy! Talk about Name That Tune! (OFA)

Not really. The 1950s through to the 2000s are an incredibly broad amount of time, considering the musical significance. Millions of songs have been made in that amount of time, and thousands of names and trends have made their mark or faded away. I realize that it isn't exactly fair to leave out the older progenitive years of traditional, folk, and orchestral music, as well as the beginning years of recorded music, but it's not very fair to just brush the years they analyzed aside. The fact that the 1960s beat out the 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s is actually a very solid achievement, not because of the quantity of the competitors, but because of the quality.

Also, I apologize. I didn't realize the study focused on chart toppers and pop-style songs. So I suppose this is less a study of all music, and more of a study of popular music.

Thanks everyone for posting your thoughts!

I disagree. Listen to the underground bands of any generation, and you'll find as much innovation and love for music as any other point in time. Try listening to the "Pebbles" and "Girls in the Garage" compilations (A big collection of 1960s underground music forgotten by time), and you'll very quickly see that even back then people were tired of the same-old pop formula. People like to think they are more experimental and mindful than their ancestors were, but in the end, they were people just like us, singing about the same themes and trying to have as much fun as possible with the tools at their disposal.

I think there was more variety in the 60's because you still had stuff like Jazz and Lounge and Exotica actually making the charts. People were just as likely to buy a Frank Sinatra single as they were a Beatles single. Roger Miller could dominate the pop charts with country novelty songs. A lot of musical styles, like garage rock, psychedlia, prog, etc. had their roots in the 60's. There were also huge folk and Latin movements, and this was all taking place in the popular arena - TV, Radio and the Pop Charts.

If you just look at what gets played on the radio these days, it's either Modern Country or Pop-Hop and that's pretty much it. It's all heavily manufactured so it's pretty bland and homogenous. There is a lot of really interesting stuff going on but it's all on the internet or independent, so you have to look for it. The average cow consumer doesn't get exposed to the variety of music that they did in the 1960's unless they make the effort to actively seek something out. And most people don't.

It's really not. It's only 60 years. People have been making music for thousands of years so one 60 year span is just a blip. I understand their reason for doing it—it's easier to collect data on recent eras—but I don't think it tells us very much.

Does it say what chart it was taken from?
I would say the American chart is a lot more conservative than the UK chart for example