One of the things that strikes me as interesting about this exchange is the split between past and present. Could it possibly be that pop music is specifically linked to a point in time (for most listeners, not all) when people connect with the music because of age?

I'm hesitant to use age as a marker, but it seems to be significant as posters refer to a point in time when the "music was better" and I'd venture to guess that it's connected to a point in their lives when they were "newer" (kind of like pop music). I'm thinking that as we age, our tastes in music become more complex and sophisticated so pop music at 20 sounds better (more relevant?) than it does at 40.

I'm in no way implying that pop music is unsophisticated or not relevant, I'm just saying that perhaps the reason that many think today's music is irrelevant is because it no longer applies to where *they* are in their lives because it's mainly written and sung by those who are generations younger.

I think if you look at children who were born in the 80s and were teens in the 90s they could listen to what was around them and probably realize that the bands such as the Rolling Stones, Beatles and Who were more interesting. Fast forward from the 90s to 2000s and I think it would be even more the case. I'm not saying there were not talented bands throughout those years just nothing that measured up to what came down the line in the 60s and 70s.

The pop now a days is shiza.
Can't stand it, all these high beat voices with unnatural sounds.

What happened to the music industry in the past 12 years?
Todays generation think's One Direction and Ciley Myrus is good!

None of them know of the bands from back then!

-Radiohead
-The Cure
-David Bowie (Not Pop but you gotta include Bowie xD)
-MGMT
-Sonic Youth
-Prince
-Vanilla Ice (Though published only one song that I can think of)
-Nirvana

Some of the stuff I listed was not pop but whatever... Trying to prove my point...
The good thing is that there are still some parents who raised their kids right...

But the music industry definitely changed...

Nirvana is most definitely not pop, unless Scentless Apprentice is a song you think my mom would enjoy.

Not sure how any of those bands relate to the pop music of 12 years ago. MGMT didn't exist yet. Nirvana no longer existed. And the others, with the possible exception of Radiohead were well past their heyday.

Nirvana is absolutely pop...

I'd say they are mainstream, but I firmly believe they are not pop.

Pop music aka "popular music"

While it Pop is short for Popular, Pop music isn't always aka "Popular Music." Pop Music is used for music (any type of genre) on the charts e.g. Billboard 100. While Popular Music is used in the schema of dividing Music into four different types: Art Music, Folk/Traditional, Popular and Tribal.

I do think that has a lot to do with it but there are some of us (I'm 25 this year) who prefer the pop of the 1960s and 70s even if we weren't alive at the time (but grew up on groovy radio tunes, ultimately expanding our knowledge based on this) ... well, in this lifetime anyway, but that's another thread entirely...

there's something so special about the past that is missing from the present.

Probably memories. The fact that they're from the past means we can assign more certain value to them. It's harder to do with new music because its too immediate and too surrounded by current tastes and trends to stand out - usually anyway. I know some albums strike as an instant classic or whatever, which is oftentimes just as bullshit as blind worship of older styles.

Pop today 1 - 7 Pop yesterday

There is no way that the songs that are being produced today can stand up to what was offered from 1960 through 1970. Those ten years represent some of the best music ever made............

Agreed!

There's no way that all of the great music combined from the 60s and 70s stack up to the music of the past decade. With the modern ease in production value, an immensely greater number of artists are able to get their name out there to some degree. Now I'm referring to music on the whole, if we're restricting the argument to pop, I think I would agree. You just have to weed out the crap.

Exhibit A Who I Can See For Miles..........

Guess Who American Woman Live at the Paramount..........What band at the moment could play something as good as this live???????? Other then the Guess Who(lol)

My feeling is that after the '80s pop became controlled by soloists (including boy bands and girl bands) and not so much by bands, though the '90s had a few decent pop bands like the Gin Blossoms, The Rembrandts, Hootie+Blowfish and others. But since the '90s I don't think there has been much good pop music at all. I think the better music is found among the "indie bands".

I think '80s was the best decade for pop music, though I think where you had so many different bands aiming at the radio back then, music was going to lose something that it had in '70s with all the album oriented songs, the longer, heavier stuff.

The '60s was ok, but I really think a lot of that stuff seems pretty dated now. The British beat-pop, surf-pop or RnB pop. I do like some of the pop songs that came out of the late '60s psychedelia, like Arthur Brown's "Fire" which I believe was a #1 hit.

Well yes of course the music from the 60s seems dated because it is 50 years old! I really don't think the music from the 80s will still resonate the way the music from the 60s still does though..............

Elvis Lawdy Miss Clawdy perhaps one of the most stunning performances ever given by a rock star. In 1968 he actually was not sure his audience would still like him. Watch the performance and judge for yourself. Elvis 1968 comeback tour.

The pop of yesterday > the pop of today.

The music of yesterday < the music of today.

After having checked out a pretty good amount of recent stuff (~10 y.o. or less) over the past 1+ year, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that -- at least the recent stuff *I* like -- is probably about as good as the stuff I like from the 80's, and maybe even a little better. However, the 60's and 70's are still better than both IMO, though there are a handful of recent bands that give them a run for their money. As for the 90's, at least for me they are a big black hole.

Having said that, Gene Simmons, in talking about Tame Impala recently, remarked on something I think is very true: If Tame Impala had come around in 1970, they would be a huge band and practically a household name (just paraphrasing him). But having come on the scene in 2010, they've come into an age where musical tastes of the masses are pretty different than they were back then, and as a result, while they're popular within a certain crowd, they still aren't remotely close to anything like a household name.

I think that's probably true for a lot of other current bands and artists, too. And the converse of that is, a lot of bands and artists that are really popular now would probably never have been popular in 1970.

One other observation - "pure" rap, as far as I can tell, seems to be going down in popularity. HOWEVER ... I've noticed quite a lot of pop artists these days have adopted rap rhythms and meters in their songs - stuff like this. I've even heard a lot of country tunes do the same thing.

I can't say I prefer the recent bands I listen to over the older bands I listen to either, but music's potential is so much greater now, with all the possible innovations and better technology. Plus, it's possible for an obscure rock band to survive with a few thousand dedicated fans. There's so much out there that I've never heard and never will hear.

EDIT: Have you listened to the Wallflowers? They're a '90s group you might like. Bob Dylan's son fronts the band.

^
Just checked out a few of their songs. Meh, sounds like a zillion other bands.

I was a teen in the 90s and you couldn't be more wrong, why would I prefer to listen to the bands my parents liked when I had the choice of Primal Scream, The Cure, Morrissey, Stone roses, Happy Mondays, Chapterhouse, Boss Hogg, Insprial Carpets, Ride, My Bloody Valentine, The Family Cat, Urge Overkill, The House of Love, Fatima Mansions, Galaxie 500, The Servants, The Shop Assistants, Blow Up, Redd Kross, McCarthy, Birdland, The Field Mice, Half Man Half Biscuit, The Jesus & Mary Chain, BMX Bandits, The Soup Dragons, Teenage Fanclub, Manic Street Preachers, The Trash Can Sinatras, The Boo Radleys.......

Oh and that list was just 1990 and was just the more poppier indie acts for the most part, that ignores most rock, metal, electronic, hip hop & dance music that was around that time too.

Now you watch him ignore this post like he does all of mine.

These are the bands that I was talking about that took their cue from all that went before them just hoping to catch a little of the fame the preceded them.

No they weren't, that's such a whack argument

All art takes its cues from that which preceded it.

Very true, although I especially take issue with his claim that the bands who do it in the 80s and 90s only did it to "catch a little fame," like their art is worth less or is pettier.

Or like how a band such as the Beatles with their matching haircuts and photo-ops and movies were somehow not trying to "catch a little fame".

lol also very true. Plus they've been open about who influenced them, from older rock to contemporaries, so I mean where's that criticism neardeathman?

I doubt you've even heard of those bands let alone listened to them.
In fact I don't think I've heard you say anything good about any music dated any later than 1970.

I like Jakob Dylan. I Started A Joke (A song by the Bee Gees in 1968) is one of my favorite singles by Dylan & The Wallflowers.
Faith No More actually covered this particular song and did it quite well as a matter of fact.

They did a fine job covering "Heroes" too.

Then try this, from 1992:

Brian Wilson himself has covered that song in concert, even opening with it. Paul McCartney said that he'd like to work with them.

I think the problem with Pop today is that you have the same small cadre of people producing all of the popular music and relying on the same tropes and influences over and over again, so pop sounds like hip-hop and hip-hop sounds like pop and it's all very generic and samey and bland. Does anyone even listen to this stuff anymore besides 12 year old girls?

yes

^ 13 is pretty much the same thing

12? I think a large portion of the population younger than 30 listens to modern mainstream HipPop.