Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Pop (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/)
-   -   The Pop of Today Vs Pop Of Yesterday (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/70178-pop-today-vs-pop-yesterday.html)

neardeathexperience 06-14-2013 07:22 AM

The Pop of Today Vs Pop Of Yesterday
 
Today watered down and lack luster at every turn. Pop of yesterday fresh innovative and ever lasting. Please discuss the differences between the pop songs between 1990 to 2013 and 1960 to 1980........:afro:

Burning Down 06-14-2013 07:28 AM

If you're talking about the Top 40 radio stuff, yeah I'd agree that so much of it today is bland and terrible.

Urban Hat€monger ? 06-14-2013 07:30 AM

I posted somewhere a few months ago the top 20 now, the top 20 20 years ago and the top 20 40 years ago.

And guess what, all 3 were filled with crap.
You just forget the bad stuff.

There's probably a little more now but not much, and that's because only 4 companies control virtually everything to do with music.
It's not that music is getting worse it's because so few people control what gets heard.

Paedantic Basterd 06-14-2013 08:09 AM

I dunno, I have the distinct impression that structurally, today's hit songs are more ikea than they used to be, in the 90s and early 00s, mainly due to the trend of repeating one particular line as a chorus or verse.

Necromancer 06-14-2013 11:28 AM

Music from the 60s, 70s, and 80s was, for the most part, great. It had a freshness about it, especially when compared to the quality of today's modern pop. When one genre died out, there was always another to replace it. I wonder if the studios had something to do with that and with the quality, too.

djchameleon 06-14-2013 01:07 PM

This thread so far just seems like a bunch of people with their rose colored glasses on reminiscing about yesteryear excluding Urban's post which is right on the money and more or less what I was coming in here to post about.

Ninetales 06-14-2013 01:11 PM

Bad music exists everywhere. Bad music from the 60s, bad music from the 70s, bad music now.
Frankly im a fairly big fan of some modern pop artists (Carly rae jepsen, nicki minaj, rihanna, etc) and will gladly take call me maybe over any song by poison, kiss, twisted sister, motley crue and that whole glam metal phase. Those are much worse than many pop songs being played nowadays.

CrazyVegn 06-14-2013 02:06 PM

Pop pre 1990s had much better bass. Rio by Duran Duran is a good example.

ZiggyStardust 06-14-2013 02:18 PM

Mostly because of the general lazyness involved with music production and lyrical content.


The Axis of Awesome: 4 Chords Official Music Video - YouTube

AOA did a song with around 45 different songs that had the same chord sequence, I V vi IV. Although there are oldies I'd say around 60% are modern top 40 hits.
As for lyrics, here's two examples.

I can be selfish, be so impatient
Sometimes I feel like Marilyn Monroe
I'm insecure, yeah, I make mistakes
Sometimes I feel like i'm at the end of the road
I can get low, I can get low
Don't know which way is up
Yeah, I can get high, I can get high
Like I could never come down

Nicki Minaj - Marilyn Monroe.

Just generic stuff really. No deep, Simon Garfunkel esque meaningfulness here.

I can’t even lie, I **** better when I’m drankin,
Ride dick like a pro, throw the pussy like I’m famous,
Pussy feels so good, feels like the rubber off, ain’t it?
You ain’t gotta tell me, I know this pussy be yankin.
This pussy be yankin, I know this pussy be yankin,
This pussy be yankin, I know this pussy be yankin,
This pussy be yankin, I know this pussy be yankin,
You ain’t gotta tell me, I know this pussy be yankin.

Lady - Yankin.

Wut.

Ninetales 06-14-2013 02:26 PM

Everything, everything, everything, everything..
In its right place
In its right place
In its right place
Right place

-Radiohead

"And your heart goes: 'Ring-a-ding ding, ring-a-ding ding, ring-a-ding ding'"

-Frank Sinatra

taking bad lyrics out of context is easy and also dumb

Necromancer 06-14-2013 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon (Post 1332339)
This thread so far just seems like a bunch of people with their rose colored glasses on reminiscing about yesteryear excluding Urban's post which is right on the money and more or less what I was coming in here to post about.

Nobody's excluding Urban's post DJ, I agree with his statement as well.

Conversation is collaborative?

djchameleon 06-14-2013 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer (Post 1332364)
Nobody's excluding Urban's post DJ, I agree with his statement as well.

Conversation is collaborative?

I didn't say that everyone is excluding his post.

Re-read what I wrote.

I was saying that all of the other posts fit the description of feeling nostalgic about a better time in their past hence they feel like the top 40 music was better except for Urban's post.

He didn't say that.

Necromancer 06-14-2013 02:56 PM

My mistake then, I took it that you were suggesting some might be living in the past without the realization between the difference of yesterdays (60, 70s, & 80s) music industry in comparative to that of the modern day.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-14-2013 08:06 PM

Is it that there is stuff nowadays just as good as 60's-80's stuff, but it's just ceased to be commercial and thus a lot of people don't regularly hear it? Or, as the "4 chords" video suggests, the whole genre of pop music might have some practical limits, and "there's no where else to go," so musicians are increasingly straining to come up with something new and different (and, perhaps, largely failing)?

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-14-2013 08:35 PM

Alright, I just sampled at least a dozen tunes on the Billboard Hot 100.

1. Pretty much everything sounds like something(s) else I've heard somewhere else. Or, they sound like other songs on the Hot 100. Some of them sound OK, but there's little point in listening to them when they just sound like something that's already been around for 20 or 30 years.
2. It has its place, but generally speaking, highly electronicized music kills the soul of music. It sounds so sterile. When even country music singers are using Autotune, you know something's wrong! Imagine Johnny Cash singing Folsom Prison with Autotune, and I think you might get my point. Some New Age and similar music is very successful with heavy-duty electronics (Enya comes to mind), but for some reason it just seems to ruin a lot of what would otherwise be halfway decent stuff.
3. Related to #2, I'm beginning to wonder if it was the 80's (and maybe even disco) which spelled the death knell of popular music. Techno-music and dance music seems to lack passion. Imagine Carry On done electronically, and I guarantee you 80% of the passion/emotion in the song would be lost.

/rant

Necromancer 06-14-2013 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1332501)
Is it that there is stuff nowadays just as good as 60's-80's stuff, but it's just ceased to be commercial and thus a lot of people don't regularly hear it? Or, as the "4 chords" video suggests, the whole genre of pop music might have some practical limits, and "there's no where else to go," so musicians are increasingly straining to come up with something new and different (and, perhaps, largely failing)?

I'm glad that you have become a member here at MB. I personally think that you add very much thought and common sense to your posts and replies before making a statement.

Your statement makes me want to express a thought, that I believe there are a lot of new bands currently out of Texas, that are bringing/experimenting with a new style of progressive metal that is more orientated toward a mainstream sound and style. I look for a new revolution of popular/mainstream progressive metal to hit the music scene within the next two or three years like we've never seen or heard before in style and metal innovation. (hoping for the best) :)

There is a void in Metal that I believe these bands are just recently realizing, that there is now an opportunity to bring Metal to the masses in a big way like never before seen or done.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-14-2013 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1332524)
2. It has its place, but generally speaking, highly electronicized music kills the soul of music. It sounds so sterile. When even country music singers are using Autotune, you know something's wrong! Imagine Johnny Cash singing Folsom Prison with Autotune, and I think you might get my point. Some New Age and similar music is very successful with heavy-duty electronics (Enya comes to mind), but for some reason it just seems to ruin a lot of what would otherwise be halfway decent stuff.

Being a fan of "comparisons" ;) I'm going to do one right here to illustrate my point.

2013 - this thing almost sounds like a caricature of country music, combined with a caricature of contemporary electronic/rap music (I suppose I'm not surprised they've got country/rap crossover these days). This is currently in the top 10. I could imagine this being a MUCH better song, 1) slowed down and sung with more passion, and 2) dump the electronics


1974 - all I can say is, the comparison is laughable! THIS is geniune! There is passion, feeling, with the melody being the most important part of the song, not the electronic effects.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-14-2013 09:17 PM

BTW, "Faithless Love" above is a great example exhibiting lots of what I call "musical drama" which I rarely hear in modern songs.

- There are pauses after each line, leading the listener to anticipate the next line.
- There are brief instrumental bridges between each verse which, on a larger scale than the pauses mentioned above, again lead the listener to anticipate the next verse. Transitions make a song much more interesting.
- Gorgeous bridge ("Well I guess I'm staaaanding ..."). If all you do is verse-refrain-verse-refrain it gets boring after a while. Nothing breaks up a song better than a nice bridge. I suppose some songs still have bridges nowadays but I don't think the electronic/dance intent of so many songs these days lends itself to having an element which interrupts the flow of the song
- Long pauses after the bridge and refrains ("Faithless looooo-oove ... (PAUSE!) ... like a river flows").

Stuff like that. Make the listener wait, and anticipate. Lead them into the next part of the song, don't just deliver it right away. Imagine Faithless Love without all those pauses, without making the listener anticipate, and it would be a MUCH lesser song.

djchameleon 06-14-2013 10:15 PM

There is a huge flaw in your comparison. Faithless love wasn't a top 40 hit.

It's easy to just compare two songs to fit your argument without a proper control.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-14-2013 10:32 PM

Faithless Love did make the Top 10 Country songs via Glen Campbell's 1984 rendition.

Unfortunately there were no country songs in the overall Top 10 of 1974.

Unless you count Olivia-Newton John and John Denver as country (kinda-sorta) the highest-ranking Top 40 song in 1974 that was a country tune was Charlie Rich's "The Most Beautiful Girl" - which I would still gladly pair up against Florida Georgia Line above.

At any rate I'd be glad to hear a recent country tune - well-known or not - which can even remotely compete with Faithless Love.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-14-2013 11:15 PM

In fact, come to think of it, I'll extend that challenge one step further: Find me any recent song of any genre that can compete with Faithless Love in terms of beauty and songwriting prowess. :ar_15s: I'm all ears.

edwardc77 06-15-2013 06:21 PM

When I think about modern pop music ,usually what comes to my mind are words like formulaic,dumbed down and lowest common denominator.
For pop music everything starting really going downhill in the 90's .
Mind you there was horrible pop music in every decade,but also great music with interesting sounds and artistic value.
Some examples of melodic works that managed stand the test of time are albums like Pet Sounds, Thriller and Rio and songs like Everybody wants to rule the world (Tears for Fears) And Enjoy the Silence (Depeche Mode)

djchameleon 06-16-2013 04:45 AM

Drive, since you like to make silly comparisons.

Here is a song from 1974 that hit number one on the country charts


Loving that lyrical prowess right there :rolleyes:


Here is a number one from 2013



Out of the two songs that you posted I'd be more inclined to listen to the one that's modern because it's more accessible and has less "twang".
Even the song I just posted from The Band Perry would get more repeated listens from more as opposed to the Gary Stewart drudgery.


There are plenty of modern songs that have passion especially in the country genre but if you are blinded by nostalgia for the past which you feel was a greater period in time for music in general then you wouldn't be able to see it. Once again, I say take off the rose colored glasses.

Dark Horse 06-16-2013 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ? (Post 1332189)
I posted somewhere a few months ago the top 20 now, the top 20 20 years ago and the top 20 40 years ago.

And guess what, all 3 were filled with crap.
You just forget the bad stuff.

There's probably a little more now but not much, and that's because only 4 companies control virtually everything to do with music.
It's not that music is getting worse it's because so few people control what gets heard.

Pretty much.

Remember the Archies, guys? No? Good.

Screen13 06-16-2013 12:52 PM



Meet the Mainstream of The 50's! There was just as much crap on the top of the charts then as now.

Plus, you had crap like this happening. Here's Pat Boone giving a whiter than Clorox version of one of the finest songs ever actually selling it to the 50's version of Idol fans. Same then, same now.

Warning: This may give you nightmares.


Lord Larehip 06-16-2013 02:28 PM

"Crotchety old men seem to have won this argument.

Modern pop music is too loud and does sound all the same, just like angry old types have been saying for 70 years.

A team from Spain analyzed music from a 55 year period, using an archive known as the Million Song Dataset, and found that songs have indeed become both louder and more homogenized in terms of chords and melodies."

The Million Song Dataset - Science Concludes Modern Music Too Loud, All Sounds The Same

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-16-2013 08:49 PM

@djchameleon,

You know what? I still like the 1974 song better. Why? Because both sound like a hundred other songs that had already been written by their time, but at least the 1974 song came first. :laughing:

And The Band Perry song still can't even remotely come close to Faithless Love. I mean, it's like ... no contest! I'd still like to hear any song in the past 10 years that can approach it.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-16-2013 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Horse (Post 1332950)
Pretty much.

Remember the Archies, guys? No? Good.

Oh, come now! Even the bubble gum songs back then were pretty good! The Archies is a great example. You kinda sorta like this song and you know it! Don't deny it!! :cool:


Here4Muzik 06-16-2013 09:01 PM

I think the difference between Pop 50 years ago and Pop now is the agenda. Today... speaking in terms of the majority, the goal of making the record is to produce the most profit possible regardless of talent/writing/producing etc.

Obviously 50 years ago Pop artists and record companies still intended to make the most amount of revenue as possible, but it did not come at cost of letting the music suffer. In today's music, especially with the internet, there is such a demand for QUICK music. And because people want stuff quickly, record companies are willing to let music suffer because they know that they can still market it well enough to sell.

ZiggyStardust 06-17-2013 01:10 AM

Yesterday,
All pop sounded better, it's fair to say
Now it looks as though it's turned to grey
Oh yesterday came suddenly
Why it had to change, I don't know, they wouldn't say
They played something wrong now I long for yesterday

*Sorry.*

djchameleon 06-17-2013 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1333124)
@djchameleon,

You know what? I still like the 1974 song better. Why? Because both sound like a hundred other songs that had already been written by their time, but at least the 1974 song came first. :laughing:

And The Band Perry song still can't even remotely come close to Faithless Love. I mean, it's like ... no contest! I'd still like to hear any song in the past 10 years that can approach it.

I figured you would! The 1974 song has too much "twang" for me. Also, I wasn't pitting Thr Band Perry's song against Faithless Love. I'm sure there is song out there in more recent years but the fact that you have such a hard-on for that song will blind you from recognizing a superior song as such.

Wolfi65 06-17-2013 08:01 AM

Pop music is, by definition, bland, repetitive, very basic lyrics set to a catchy dance beat. "Oooohh, babee.....' etc.
I'd say the main difference between Pop (or any other genre, for that matter) in the 1920's - 1970's and thereafter might be that in the 'Good Old Days' (......), it was MUCH more difficult for anyone to a) become a musician and b) get noticed beyond a small town/circle of friends.
Today, we have several hundreds of Teach-Yourself paks most people - at least in the developed world - can afford, and we have You Tube......
We also have thousands of different items of electronic wizardry that can make any doofus with enough money to buy them or enough connections to borrow them sound like Spandau Ballet meets 50 Cen'.

Ninetales 06-17-2013 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi65 (Post 1333254)
Pop music is, by definition, bland, repetitive, very basic lyrics set to a catchy dance beat. "Oooohh, babee.....' etc.

This must be from the new websters dictionary that hasn't been released yet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi65 (Post 1333254)
I'd say the main difference between Pop (or any other genre, for that matter) in the 1920's - 1970's and thereafter might be that in the 'Good Old Days' (......), it was MUCH more difficult for anyone to a) become a musician and b) get noticed beyond a small town/circle of friends.

I think you are confusing difficulty with capability. Because there was no Internet of course you couldn't possibly reach an audience as large as now, but on the flip side there is much more competition than there was back then. And competition breeds quality. How are you supposed to make it big if there are hundreds of people in your neighborhood alone that are trying to be the same thing? Answer: by being better, more creative, and by having some degree of luck. There are an almost infinite amount of bands posting on YouTube, band camp, etc trying to get there music to the masses. I fail to see how that makes it easier for one to actually make it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi65 (Post 1333254)
Today, we have several hundreds of Teach-Yourself paks most people - at least in the developed world - can afford, and we have You Tube......
We also have thousands of different items of electronic wizardry that can make any doofus with enough money to buy them or enough connections to borrow them sound like Spandau Ballet meets 50 Cen'.

How is a doofus with a computer different than a doofus with a guitar?
And connections? Um networking is how you get anywhere in any profession, how can you possibly think having connections is a bad thing?

Justin Bieber started out with a guitar and a YouTube channel. He didn't just throw money at big wig execs until they gave him all the fame and power that his greedy fingers could hold. Is bieber great? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not arguing that he's amazing but I'm arguing that people should be able to believe he is. Personally ill listen to Boyfriend if I want to get in the party mood much like the way ill listen to Harold Budd if I want to relax or Gorguts if I want to rip someone's head off.

Hey some people like listening to chart pop. Why others constantly cry about this and then try to justify how all modern music is **** and that real music died in the 70s blah blah blah boo hoo is beyond me. Music, like everything, is constantly evolving. If you don't like Rihanna's music that's cool but don't patronize those that do just because you have extreme tunnel vision.

But then again what do I even know I'm just a god damn pokemon

Surell 06-17-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1332571)
In fact, come to think of it, I'll extend that challenge one step further: Find me any recent song of any genre that can compete with Faithless Love in terms of beauty and songwriting prowess. :ar_15s: I'm all ears.



is four years recent enough? I've got one from last year:


Eq McFly 06-17-2013 06:04 PM

everyone loves to reminisce about the golden years, but they had their fair share of bad music. have to take the good and the bad , some of the most remembered tracks weren't nearly as big as when they were released. Every generation had their 'soulja boy'

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-17-2013 08:01 PM

@Surell,

Those are definitely interesting songs. That said, it's pretty much what I would expect of "progressive" pop/rock nowadays - lots of electronics, de-emphasis on melody. "Interesting," but not "beautiful" or what I would call "emotionally moving." I'd give them credit for technique/technical prowess, but lacking emotion/passion.

I found myself listening to the 2nd song more intently. Hard to tell, but it sounded like some interesting time signature changes were going on - like, 3/8 with interruptions of ... something else.

If pop music were to go in this direction, I would consider it a step in the right direction, but would still yearn for the 1960-1990 years.

Urban Hat€monger ? 06-17-2013 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1333553)
@Surell,

Those are definitely interesting songs. That said, it's pretty much what I would expect of "progressive" pop/rock nowadays - lots of electronics, de-emphasis on melody. "Interesting," but not "beautiful" or what I would call "emotionally moving." I'd give them credit for technique/technical prowess, but lacking emotion/passion.

I found myself listening to the 2nd song more intently. Hard to tell, but it sounded like some interesting time signature changes were going on - like, 3/8 with interruptions of ... something else.

If pop music were to go in this direction, I would consider it a step in the right direction, but would still yearn for the 1960-1990 years.

The stuff you yearn for is still around, it's just not in the pop charts.
And nor should it be.
If the current generation of kids were interested in listening to 40 year old country ballads I would be seriously worried about the future of music.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-17-2013 08:45 PM

Perhaps I should have said, "I would still prefer the 1960-1990 years." ;)

As an aside, I'm surprised at how many teenagers and 20-something I encounter not only like, but prefer that 40-year-old music. When I was a teenager it was almost unheard of to prefer 40-year-old music. The fact that so many young people these days like this stuff, is one more reason why I suspect there really is something to the notion that popular music then had something today's music lacks.

Urban Hat€monger ? 06-17-2013 08:50 PM

I remember people saying the exact same thing in the 80s and in the 90s.
It's not unusual at all.

When you first start to look at music past what's in the charts the big names from the past are nearly always your first reference to non chart music.
Some people stick with that, others decide that they don't want to listen to old music all the time and then go out & find music that appeals to them that's being made today.

sopsych 06-17-2013 11:13 PM

None of these points are new to me, and all have some validity.

Here's my position: there was always low-quality pop, but great stuff (mostly with regard to lyrics) rarely is made anymore. There has been a noted decline in the percentage of ballads among hit songs in the past decade or so (compare Katy Perry and Lady Gaga with Madonna), and ballads in my opinion comprise most of the great pop songs of all time. The loss of great pop includes reasons mentioned by others, along with the MTV-fueled increase emphasis on appearance, (research-demonstrated) greater narcissism among today's young people (I mean fans and musicians, with less of an ability to go emotionally deep), the replacement of rock with rap on major stations and channels, more emphasis on the not-very-fluent-in-English part of the international market (which almost automatically limits lyrical complexity), and the decline of quality musicians among male pop stars. I'm not going to open one can of worms from that list. Instead I will expand on the male thing with the risqué point that men generally write better love songs than women do, probably because men 'need' women more than women 'need' men and male pop artists have trouble getting fan loyalty without strong ballads - but the industry has shifted toward the other way male artists can get loyalty (albeit not as much as female pop stars can), which is through widespread sex appeal. I am oversimplifying things, because it's a complicated subject and I don't have enough free time.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 AM.


© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.