Is music becoming more homogenized?
 

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

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.

Wouldn't that be the 1980s?

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

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

Just saying.

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.

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.

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.

basic ingredients of a modern pop song:

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

I like your avatar.

I personally believe that there's original and innovative music out there to be found if you look for it hard enough, but at the same time, I'm also bored with all the throwback bands of the modern day. Blues rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock, modern day bands of those particular genres. I'm not trying to say that all the current throwback bands are all bad, there are a few here and there that are halfway decent.

Current metal seems to be just splintering off even into more and more generc subgenres and different styles that its sometimes hard to keep up with what's going on in the music industry.

I'm fine with gay people making music.

Well you are from the UK... so... :p:

No that's just Brighton

Thanks. You must be into Sparks as well?

I see your "Dancing Queen" and raise you an "I Let the Music Speak" because Americans are generally pretty ignorant to the vast emotional value of Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus' musicianship.



And then there's this beautiful lesser-known track.



So while it's fair to say that ABBA was part of the disco scene for a little while, it's not exactly accurate to lump them with the other disco acts of the time period. I can't think of any other songs off the top of my head (apart from "Summer Night City") where there's even a mentioning of dance floors or any other stupid, useless lyrics.

u mad?

Food for thought: I've gotten my cousin into a few non-mainstream bands that would never get radio time. She asks me to make cd's of these bands, but doesn't look into them or others like them herself, because she's technologically inept and not that into music. Me making a mix CD of random songs is fine for her because she doesn't think in terms of artists or albums she likes, she thinks in terms of songs.

For people who don't become obsessed with music like us here are, their listening doesn't extend much beyond what they hear on the radio and what other people show them. And yes, most of the radio music follows a specific formula that apparently suits such people just fine. So more similar music is made to appeal to that greater demographic, even though they don't necessarily love it, they're just cool with it. I think if bands not following the formula would get more airtime, they'd have just as many fans as those who do.

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

This is what I think.

And these last 60 years have seen incredible strides. Like I said, quality over quantity. It may be a short amount of time, but you shouldn't just pretend it doesn't matter, or wasn't worth analyzing. It tells us quite a bit about modern music.

To all of you who claim that today's music listeners are somehow "dumbed-down" in their tastes or methods of acquiring music, I would disagree with you. People back then were just as superficial in their tastes as we are today. Look at the top 100 charting songs of any year and you find very formulaic brain-candy. People back then loved radio stations and 45s like we love online radios and I-Tunes singles. There is a famous comparison that someone made (but I can't remember who) where they pointed at that at the same time Led Zeppelin started hitting their stride, The Archies "Sugar Sugar" peaked the charts.

Music may be more homogenized than it was sixty years ago, but it isn't exactly the fault of the listener; Record labels are getting better at making safe, cash raking songs, that are manufactured to be inoffensively successful. It's the best way for them to do what they exist to do; make money.

It tells us something about modern western pop music but I'm not sure how much can be extrapolated onto all other modern music from that.

I wasn't actually suggesting that current musicians are more innovative today then they were say, in the '60s for example. Maybe I should have clarified my statement better but I was suggesting about the availability and access musicians have these days compared to 20, 30, or 40 years ago with the internet and technology of modern times.
There is currently only 4 major recording companies compared to hundreds of them 20 years ago. I was mainly just suggesting that modern musicians have a little more independence today getting their music out to an audience in comparison to prior decades.

On point!

You forgot self praise or self adoration on that list, delusional sense of importance and such, thinking they're better than they actually are, blah blah blah.

I see your point, but western music has heavily influenced the world. Go to Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, etc. and you will find hip-hop, western pop, punk, rock and roll, etc. Other countries have really started producing large amounts of chart topping musicians, but they all share a trend in that their musical stylings are deeply rooted in the western beat. So I think the trends in western music aren't just a blip on the radar of modern sound.

But hey, if you want to talk about the musical trends of other nations, feel free to. I'd love to see similar studies done around the world, or at least the opinion of someone from outside the U.S. Other countries have certainly changed in their sound as well (The same country that produced "The Ambush From All Sides" and "On the General's Mandate", China, is now producing auto-tune laden pop).

My point is that the music being charted in that study is a very tiny sliver of the music being made. Even within the western world, pop music is just a tiny sliver of all the music being created. So there's not much that be gleaned from that data except things that apply to an extremely small percentage of music.

A tiny sliver of all music being created, yes, but the majority of all music being heard. Most people in America aren't rich, meaning that the very wealthy are a tiny percentage. By your logic, that means that the very wealthy, being such a small percentage, must likewise have little to no influence on the lives of the American population.