The Pop of Today Vs Pop Of Yesterday

Zer0 · 01-27-2014, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

And the vast majority that cannot do so, SUCK.

I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54

Here follows my idiosyncratic hypothesis concerning the cause of the poverty in pop music nowadays. This hypothesis is based on the essential point conveyed in Ayn Rand's essay "The Comprachicos" (this essay is pubished in the essay collection "Return of the Primitive", edited by Peter Schwartz).

My hyopothesis is that the root cause of the dearth of good new pop music in our time is progressive education.

Why?

In order to create good new music the songwriter needs to possess formidable cognitive skills. Modern education sabotages the development of said skills. Therefore there is a poverty of good minds out there nowadays. And so, just as young people today are less able to read, write, do arithmetic,and so forth compared to the kids of my generation (I was born in 1954), so also kids today are less able to carry out the thinking necessary to create good new music. The minds of the young have been disintegrated by the (mostly public) schools which they have been required to attend.

A tragedy.

Conclusions (two of them):

1) We need a philosophy of reason.

2) We need to get the government out of education (in other words: NO public schools! Privatize both the production and finance of education!)

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

galt54 · 01-27-2014, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zer0

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.

Zer0 · 01-27-2014, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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

galt54 · 01-27-2014, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zer0

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".

Zer0 · 01-27-2014, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54

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.

galt54 · 01-27-2014, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zer0

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?

Surell · 01-27-2014, 02:26 PM

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.

galt54 · 01-27-2014, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surell

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.

djchameleon · 01-27-2014, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54

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.

Zer0 · 01-27-2014, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54

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.

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

Quote:

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?

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.