I disagree.

How does this explain all the good music today that isn't pop music?

A plausible answer to that question is that there probably is not nearly as much good classical music, jazz music, blues music, folk music etc. being written as in earlier times either.

Of course, like everyone else I am not omniscient or infallible. My idea was, as I said in my previous post, merely a hypothesis. I am dead certain that there is not as much good pop music being wrtitten today as there was 30, 40 and 50 years ago - but I am not certain about the cause.

That doesn't really answer the question, you are only referring to four types of music.

But you also seem to be referring to music in general as well as pop music. So which is it?

1) I am certain that there is not equally much good pop music being written today as in earlier decades.

2) I suspect that there is not equally much good music in general being written today as in earlier decades.

3) I am not certain about the cause of 1) OR about the cause of 2) IF 2) is true.

4) The reason for which I am certain of the truth of 1) but not of that of 2) is the fact that I listen to pop music all the time, but rarely listen to other types of music. I suspect that 2) is true due to mere hearsay plus the fact that if it were true "it figures".

Even if pop music isn't as good as it used to be that's more to do with less people controlling what gets heard rather than artistic ability or education. Also, you don't 'write' popular music, it only becomes pop music if it's promoted in a way so that it becomes popular.

Also I think there's been tons of great music released in recent years that isn't popular music and is just as good as music released in past decades. Even if you don't think so that's entirely subjective.

You have a point. It is certainly possible that a lot of good pop music has been written in recent years - but that I am unaware of it because it has not become successfully mass-marketed.

Still - it would seem strange if the "few executives" who allegedly call the shots in the music industry nowadays neglected to market an equivalent of The Beatles, if such a band/artist existed today. For what would be in it for them(i.e. for the executives of the music industry) to pass up an opportunity to make loads of money?

You lost me at the fountainhead.

Btw you can only make a Beatles argument for influence or doing something before another person did that same thing. There are plenty of people that made better music than the Beatles.

I am not aware of the existence of any musical artist/group who has made still better pop music than the Beatles but who has been neglected by the music industry. It is possible in principle that "plenty" of such people have existed - but on the basis of the principle that it would contradict everything that I know about the nature of businessmen (that they seek profits, that they are not utter dummies, etc.) I find it difficult to believe. Also, the quality of the, admittedly modest, quantity musical artists hailed as "alternative" (REM, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc.) does not impress me.

You are stuck in the past so any new artist you will subjectively not be impressed with even artists that are better than The Beatles and write excellent songs.

Why does it have to be successfully mass-marketed for you to be aware of it?

The way major record labels work for the most part is find artists who can make them a few quick bucks, delivering a few hits until their public appeal wanes, before discarding onto the heap of has-been pop stars that went before them. They then focus their money on another money-spinning artist and whole thing repeats itself. They're not interested in taking long-term risks.

Also, The Beatles in the early 60's were marketed in the same way as modern boybands are now. Girls ran screaming after them on the streets and all that lark. A far cry from the influential band they would become in their later years.

Well, I will never reach omniscience. And I am too smart to worry my head about that fact. The best procedure is to think in principles.

On the basis of rational principles, I say that it makes sense that people whose minds were crippled by modern education would only be able to achieve less in all fields, including songwriting, than in earlier years. So my impression that there is less good pop music around today than in former years makes eminent sense.

Also, I know on the basis of rational principles that it does not make sense to hypothesize that there might be a lot of good pop artists out there who have been neglected by the commercial music industry. For music industry executives who neglected anything as good as, or better than, The Beatles would be guilty of leaving an awful lot of money on the table for no good reason. And why would they do that?:bonkhead:

Are you even reading and understanding what other people are posting?

Y'know I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't even a fair question anymore. On the one hand we can applaud the songwriters of the 60's for their innovation, but on the other hand, musicians these days have so many more tools to work with to create sounds songwriters in the 60's could only dream of.

Could Brian Wilson have even thought of something like this?



This is the closest he could manage at the time.



One can argue the BB song is "better" than the AnCo song because the AnCo song is derivative of the BB song, and thus "copying" it ... but on the other hand you can't blame AnCo for copying a successful formula - even the BB's did that.

And yet, the AnCo song is clearly more complex than Good Vibrations (which says a lot), with a density of sound and layers of counter-melodies even the BB's would have had a difficult time pulling off. But I dunno, a lot of people will say the added complexity is a weakness, not a strength, because it makes the song too busy. But there were people at the time who thought Good Vibrations was too busy.

Or maybe the complexity is neither 'better' or 'worse' and it just depends on how you pull it off. Or maybe it's both, depending on who you ask and what their tastes are.

Maybe this is like comparing the pop of the 60's with the pop music of the 20's? Not sure it's really fair. In the 60's they had so much more to work with than they did in the 20's, kinda like what they do now. I've little doubt there were a lot of older people in the 60's who thought the tunes from the 20's and 30's was better. Sometimes when I listen to Sinatra I can understand the "older is better" mindset.

Business has nothing to do with quality, and pop music isn't just popular music if you think of it's genre status. Also, Radiohead.

This sums up the whole thread.

The older generation will always think that the new generation is crap.

Same thing happens with parents calling new music noise compared to the music of their glory days.

They have their rose colored glasses on and memories attached to the music of their heyday and will always think it is superior.

In 30 years, kids today that have grown up will talk about how Dubstep was far superior than whatever future music genre that is the in thing in that time.

Now that I've listened to more recent music in the intervening 7 months, from page 3 I'm going to answer my own challenge.

To be honest, I still can't find a recent song as beautiful as Faithless Love ... melodically ... though for all I know there's something out there I haven't heard that is. But of the stuff I've become familiar with, I'll give a few songs honorable mention, albeit for different reasons.

Again, here's Faithless Love. Gorgeous, sad song. Great songwriting.



Now, the more recent stuff seems to emphasize the overall sonic effects/instrumentation/arrangement at the expense of the melody. I note that's a generalization based on my anecdotal listenings. That said, there are recent songs whose overall sonic effects/instrumentation/arrangements are, indeed, as beautiful as is the melody of Faithless Love. I'll use Easier as an example: It's a beauty, but a different kind of beauty.



In a way, the Grizzly Bear song is more interesting. The Linda Ronstadt (actually JD Souther) song has more passion, but the Grizzly Bear song is more complex. It's like listening to Tchaikovsky, and then comparing it to Stravinsky. They've both got beauty, but completely different kinds.

I'm still very confused by the concept of the crippled education system. You're insisting that a more available education system would result in a a generally less educated public. You infer from your own education, and the fact that you enjoyed such a thig when it was more luxurious, means that everyone had such an education, is not a rational conclusion. Because you were a part of such a fortunate circumstance, I'm sure you knew people of a similar sort, and indeed may have been surrounded by them. Do you really think the whole of a country had such luxuries, when your hypothesis relies on an education system not readily available to all? How could it follow then that education was universally better and thus able to produce more able musicians?

Here's a song whose emotions challenge me as much as Faithless Love. It's much more "minimalist" melodically, to the point where they almost can't be compared, but that in itself gives it a certain beauty, and makes it a very sad listen. Just 4-5 notes define the entire melody.

melody: B-A
counter melody: F#-E ... or ... F#-E-D ... or F#-E-A

Then they do a refrain D-A-D-B.

It's almost like Gregorian Chant in its simplicity. But that's what also gives it its sad, ethereal feel.

I think there has been a turn around in pop music in the last 5 years, largely because the R&B that had ruled the roost since the 90's has run its course.

Nothing against R&B per say, but it was all music based on sampling beats from Britney Spears to Lil Wayne, to $hit artists singing Toto's Africa over a sampled hip hop beats.

In short people got tired of the bull$hit, you can only market music to 14 year olds for so long, so real musichans are returning to the forefront. ie









So lets cross are fingers and hope that this bull**** finally fades away.



Because the original is so much better than what these R&B jackasses put out.

The Rock bands that immediately follow the Beatles weren't exactly Pop groups. It seems the music industry ignore these underground Rock bands, but maybe that only pertains to the Top 40 format. The industry made plenty of money on a lot of non Top 40 bands through selling albums and also with concert revenues as well. They were bands still part of the recording industry but were not bands on the Pop charts. As far as musicianship they were better than the Beatles. The Beatles were good for what they did, but they were not better than musicians found in most hard Rock and Prog Rock. The Beatles of course had more hits, but that doesn't mean they were better underground bands that didn't have any Top 40 hits.

The Beatles went from a unknown scruffy pub band to a Pop band for screaming girls back to experimental and underground music. There is two sides to their music. The Pop songs and the rest of their catalogue. Besides being on the charts, The Beatles seemed to be on the vanguard of underground. But most of Rock went that way underground during the late 60s. I'm not saying the Beatles lead the way or split music into Pop and underground. There has always been a divide between very popular music which was tracked on the Pop charts and an underground of less familiar music to the public as a whole, which was the case even in the Jazz era. And when speaking of underground Rock music of the late '60s, '70s Jazz had a far reaching influence. The Beatles really didn't delve into Blues or Jazz like hard Rock & Prog bands did. Rock music didn't get worse after the Beatles, to many it improved and got more sophisticated with things the Beatles didn't bother with or couldn't.

Sometimes I go back and forth whether the bands that were in the Pop charts after the Beatles were for the most part industry's choice and were not always as good as the Beatles. I do & don't agree depending on the band/artist and what type of music etc.

It seems as an apple or orange comparison when talking about The Beatles that a fan knows everything about versus a bunch of groups that a (Beatles) fan knows very little about them. Is the Beatle fan comparing #1 hits or non-singles of The Beatles to a song on the Top 40 chart? How can one say The Beatles are better than so-and-so when all they heard is that one hit?

huh the "rihanna makes bad music because she didnt get proper education" argument is something ive never heard before.

I wonder what noted college dropout john lennon thinks of this hypothesis.

Haha, good point :laughing:

There has always been bad and good music. It's true that nowadays the "bad" music has increased a lot, but I think it's just a phase. Things will get better.

Such a GREAT post!!!

Well where are the people who can write and sing a song like "The Sound Of Silence", or "California Dreaming "? If it's that good they will find a way to get it out there. In my opinion this is not a case of the so called older generation labeling today's music as crap it's just the reality of what is out there and being made these days!

How much have you looked?

This is like saying the ocean only has dolphins in it because you saw one jump out of the water once.

My answer to that is that you must have observed a few instances of low quality in America, hastily generalized and leaped to the conclusion that "business" as such has nothing to do with quality.

Well, in a capitalistic society the businessmen who produce good quality at reasonable prices outcompete the ones which don't sooner or later - usually not much later. But there is a lot of junk on the market, in music as well as elsewhere, today. The reason is not "business" or capitalsm. America today is a mixed economy - and in a mixed economy shoddy goods can stay around for a long time, since the government suppresses the free market.

Here is one concrete which goes a long way to explaining why you may have observed that a lot of crappy popular music is commercially successful today:

The government regulates the ether (i.e. radio and television). In order for a businessman or idealist to start a radio station, he first needs to get a broadcast license from the government. So it is really difficult or an "upstart" to break into the radio broadcasting business. No one can establish a radio station without the permission of the bureaucrats at the FCC. What do you think that does to the value of diversity in the ether?

In a capitalist society it would be much easier for upstarts to start their own radio stations. There would therefore be many independent radio stations. The effect of that on the music industry is that "small" and independent pop and rock artists would have more of a chance of getting their songs played on the radio. And, of course, radio play can make or break a song and an artist.

Here is a concrete piece of advice for improving the state of popular music:

Abolish the FCC and deregulate TV and radio!

It is an objective fact that much of popular music today is noise. I have listened to modern punk, metal music and rap. Many of the songs I heard were devoid of melody.

It is not easy at all to come up with a good melody. I have tried and failed miserably (I am not a musician. I merely tried to invent a new melody to see if I could do it.)

I stand by my hypothesis that the minds of young people today have been screwed up by the day care centers and the schools. Read that essay "The Comprachicos".

I am aware of the fact that there were school districts and school districts. Kids in the slums got an even worse education than us kids in the prosperous suburbs.

The trouble is that when the government provides "free" (i.e. tax-financed, i.e. financed by the looting of your fellow citizens) education - that not only makes "education" availible to the poor - it also destroys education for everyone.

The solution to this problem is capitalism. Abolish the government's involvement in education. Education would not cost very much at all on a free market.

Ask yourself the simple question: What is necessary for a kid to get a good education?

Answer: A classroom, some simple furniture, a competent teacher and some decent books. That is all.

So private education would be much less expensive than the public schools America is cursed with today. But of course socialists would be unhappy about the fact that the parents would have to pay out of their own pockets for their own children's education!

The poor would have access to education in a capitalist society. They do not have access to education worthy of the name today. The kids in the slums and in the suburbs of America today often do not even learn to read and write decently!

Undeniable proof that the school systems in this country are worthless: here

The fact that John Lennon was a college dropout means nothing. My hypothesis was not that getting a "bad education" can render you unable to write good music - but that getting you mind screwed up by means of getting a modern (progressive) education can do so.

Actually, not going to school at all might be beneficial for a kid nowadays - given the deplorable state of the schools (and day care centers).

I think a lot of music from the 60s, 70s & 80s is crap. Especially the tons of soft rock/ pop rock that dominated the charts in the 70s.
I don't spend ages making up elaborate reasons for it, it's simply because I think it's crap.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney went to public schools, during an age when socialism was quite popular in Britain. According to your theory they were unlikely to have written good music due to an inferior education. Brian Wilson also attended public schools. I'm sure that means he wrote crap, too. :bonkhead:

I don't see why this thread has to be ruined with a political discussion.

As someone who was as skeptical as you of modern music a mere 7 months ago (see first few pages of this thread), I seriously wonder how much you've actually listened to. Or maybe you're insisting music today is bad because it gives you another reason to rant against the education system?

Tell me these songs aren't melodic. You don't seem to be listening or critiquing the songs shown in this thread. Here is your chance. I actually sing these songs in the shower.

Browse through some of the videos I've shown.

If you like Jimi Hendrix you'll like this. Frankly I think this particular tune is an improvement on anything Hendrix did, though I admit much of my reasoning for that is because Kevin Parker's got a nicer singing voice.



If you like the Beatles you'll like this (same band).



And as I said before, as much as I love the Beach Boys I don't think Brian Wilson could have thought of something like this. Part of it's the tools available at the time, but not all of it. This is more complex than I think Wilson would ever have been comfortable with.



LISTEN to each of these a few times and then I dare you to come back and tell me they suck.

BTW, if you're into "pure" melody, unadorned stuff, here's some answers to your question.

Even my (70-something) mother likes Jack Johnson!




Then there's Fleet Foxes. 21st Century folk-rock. With the emphasis on the folk.

OK, strictly speaking politics is off topic. But the subject came up.

And I am serious - I do believe that the deterioration in the schools can explain the deterioration in popular music.

As for John Lennon's, Paul McCartney's and Brian Wilson's education in public schools - my entire point was that the schools (both public and private) are still worse today than they were in the earlier decades.

Those three musical geniuses went to public schools in the 1940s and v1950s. Their minds were certainly not nearly as screwed up by their "education" as the minds of kids who went to school in the 1980s and 1990s. The schools in the entire western world have gone from bad to worse.

Have you listened to a single one of the tunes I posted? It appears not. You're not even trying to like anything new. You're so insistent on using music to make your political point that you almost seem to be afraid to listen to anything that might prove you wrong.

Music has nothing to do with politics or education.

Unless you can provide a link to a research study that proves any of this and gives spine to your argument, I'm not inclined to believe your amateur observations.

Also, different countries have different education systems.