There's great music out there, but it's not being played. Alt. Rock Stations here in L.A. such as KROQ and 98.7 have a playlist that's about 3 hours long (before they start repeating everything).

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
Michael Jackson - King of Pop, anyone? - was the Beatles of the 80's

Surely the Beatles were on a somewhat higher level than Michael Jackson. I could think of 10 good Beatles tracks and of only one by Michael Jackson. I think that the level off 80s pop was definitely lower than it had been in the 50s, 60s and early 70s.

Dead right, lsbz.

In also agree...but what the hell has 'better' got to do with pop music dying? Better is just a taste thing. Some people like Michael Jackson much better than the Beatles, and they're right, for them.

You haven't even formed a logical point in your own argument!

Quote
treaclefingers
Some people like Michael Jackson much better than the Beatles, and they're right, for them.

But for different reasons if the music wasn't as good. It depends on what you want, but if the appreciation shifts from music to visuals and production; the music is dying to a certain extent. It's gradual, so you don't notice it much, but it definitely has changed for the worse.

You are right, Treaclefingers. The thread is distorted. Popular music is a wider concept than your personal taste! You might not like the 80-ties music but in those days popular music and the music industry still thrived. MTV was booming, the tabloids had detailed music supplements and reviews, you could still watch a decent music-show on TV, record stores weren't scarce, a band releasing a single was still a happening, record sales were high etc etc.

To go back to my earlier post in a little more depth: I grew up in a very fortunate time for popular music. I was a kid in the 1960s. On Top 40 Radio at that time (in my case WMCA and WABC in New York) one could hear The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Supremes, Aretha Franklin, Frank Sinatra, Bobbi Gentry, Glen Campbell, The Young Rascals, Tommy James and the Shondells, as well as one-hit wonders all on the same Top 40 chart. Individual DJ's also had the power to break new artists single-handedly (so what if sometimes a few dollars changed hands). This meant that one was constantly exposed to new music and different kinds of music all the time. It also explains why a group like The Beatles could be wildly commercially successful and radically experimental at the same time.

Yeah, I loved "Satisfaction" and "Hey Jude" on the radio, but I also loved "Wichita Lineman", "Love Is Blue", "Crimson and Clover", "Daydream Believer" "These Boots Are Made For Walking", "The Harper Valley PTA", and even "MacArthur Park".

None of this is possible now. We are all diced and sliced into demographics and genres: Hip Hop, Soft Rock, (so-called) R&B, (so-called) Country. It's very cynical. And the more that people hear of just the thing they like, guess what, the more they want to hear just the thing they like (or think they like) and the more conservative the radio programmers become. Just like the record companies, there is no perceived upside to taking risks in radio. yes, there are still some independent stations (mostly college ones) on which you can hear interesting music, but really even they have kind of a hip self-referential vibe to them.

I believe this has killed the vitality of pop music as much as anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-05 06:02 by 71Tele.

Yes, demographics is a key word here, 71 Tele. The advertisers decides which groups that are commercially relevant. It often tends to be women between 20-35 years old. The average Rolling Stones listener, for example, is considered too old. Here in Sweden we used to have a very good public service radio channel, P 3, that played popular music aimed at people between 15-65. Now they have changed all that and sliced it into demographics.

Still public service radio, here in Sweden, is 500 times better than commercial radio which is basically radio for idiots! And we were fortunate not to have commercial radio here till the late 80-ties.

Quote
Doxa
.

I can see the drive for a "objective criteria" in good music, but I find that extremily difficult task to really accomplish. But this is very challenging thread, and hats off for that!

- Doxa

Overproduction, and music which sounds like it was tailor made from computer programming, Doxa, is the difference between, say, the Back Street Boys and Bobby Vee, who did actually record songs which live and breathe, in an uncluttered format, even if that particular genre may not be to your taste. I love pop music, and tend to remember the classics from the seventies, because i could relate to them. I could touch their emotional core, even if some of them were a little frivilous. That's rarely the case today, in an age where we are bombarded with over production and computer/digital technology, where everything begins to sound the same, pretty much souless and sterile. Some songs do have the makings of a promising melody at times, but they are bombarded by overproduction, and in the case of the post Whitney female vocalist generation, also over singing. I'm not saying by everyone, though, because there are always exceptions to the rule, if you are prepared to listen long enough. Subtelty, though, sometimes is very hard to find.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
treaclefingers
Some people like Michael Jackson much better than the Beatles, and they're right, for them.

But for different reasons if the music wasn't as good. It depends on what you want, but if the appreciation shifts from music to visuals and production; the music is dying to a certain extent. It's gradual, so you don't notice it much, but it definitely has changed for the worse.

So the Elvis worshippers or MOP TOP freaks didn't worry about the visuals...just the audio? come on! It's always been a packaged-deal with popular music, don't delude yourself.

Quote
Stoneage
Yes, demographics is a key word here, 71 Tele. The advertisers decides which groups that are commercially relevant. It often tends to be women between 20-35 years old. The average Rolling Stones listener, for example, is considered too old. Here in Sweden we used to have a very good public service radio channel, P 3, that played popular music aimed at people between 15-65. Now they have changed all that and sliced it into demographics.

Still public service radio, here in Sweden, is 500 times better than commercial radio which is basically radio for idiots! And we were fortunate not to have commercial radio here till the late 80-ties.

Stoneage: This leads me to a side question about Sweden (and other non-English speaking places) and pop music. How is it to grow up in a country where the predominant language of the most influential music in the world is a foreign one? Always wondered about that. I remember reading somewhere that the singers in ABBA learned their lyrics phonetically so they could sing in English. Is there a "natural" relationship between the English language and pop music? Interesting questions...I remember being in Paris and hearing some French rock music and it sounding ridiculous to my ears, even though I love the sound of spoken French. Got me thinking about these things...

One funny thing is that when I grew up (pre-teens) listening to English (-spoken) rock and pop the lyrics were totally secondary, simply because you didn't understand much of it. Rock- and popmusic is an American/English format so you have to relate to that. Sweden is a small country (not in size, but in population) so if you want to break internationally you have to sing in English. I don't think it's true that ABBA learned their lyrics phonetically - most Swedes are pretty keen in English since English is obligatory in Schools from the age of seven.

The most popular rockbands in Sweden nowadays sings in Swedish though. But many pop lyricists says it harder to write lyrics in Swedish because pop/rock music is meant to be sung in English!

As long as something is a business, as the music industry most certainly is, there will always be people attempting to make money from it.
A lot of cash was made off Elvis, the Beatles and the like - and it wasn't necessarily made by the artists.
The musicians that arose in the late 60s during the peace, bells and hare krishna era - the Woodstock Generation - had almost an aversion to cashing in their music for a quick buck. If someone were to allow their music to be used in a commercial, for example, he or she would be shunned faster than a room full of lepers.
But it was also during this time that it was discovered that not only could money be made from popular music, BIG money could be made. And Woodstock soon went from idealistic cultural event to a way to sell posters, peace symbols and black-light posters.
Through most of the 70s, popular music grew, but still the fan could go see three quality acts in an arena for about six dollars. Geez, even the Stones tix for the Exile tour were only $6.50 face.
In the late 70s, however, on the heels of "Rumors" and "Frampton Comes Alive" selling 20-plus million copies, music officially became a product,
By the 80s, and I don't know whether to point to MTV, the Stones and their sponsorship deal with a perfume company or what, but music was being marketed like it was a bar of soap or a quart of soda.
Every single had to accompanied by a video. Music, like films, was now previewed by company execs and had to be commerically palpable to even get released.
There were still musicians like Springsteen and Mellencamp who refused to cave to the commerical lure, but the die was cast.
Nowadays, like everything, music is no different than hair dye or grape juice. Musicians now line up for commercial tie-ins, crap like "Glee" is cranked out like the latest reality show. Popular music is manufactured drivel just dying to be used in a movie trailer or heard in a TV commercial.
Is there good music being made? Sure, there always will be. But it's not the popular music of the day. How tough is it to hear any of the new music from the Stones or Dylan or any "old" act, no matter how good it might be?
Just like in any aspect of this world, money has usurped popular music. The dollar has won again, and I don't know why anyone is shocked.

Quote
BluzDude
There's great music out there, but it's not being played. Alt. Rock Stations here in L.A. such as KROQ and 98.7 have a playlist that's about 3 hours long (before they start repeating everything).

I recently found this station from NYC..WFUV Radio..I think it's fantastic...it even has some of the great DJ's I grew up with in NYC...including Vin Scelsa, Pete Fornatale, and even Dennis Elsas....all the great and wonderful DJ's of NY's glorious past WNEW 102.5 FM...too bad we still don't have the nightbird Allison Steele with us because surely she would have been on there to complete the talent pool...during the week they play great cuts, and surprising cuts old, new and in between....their set lists are exciting and never predictible...and so I highly recommend that you give it a listen..here's the link...[www.wfuv.org]

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
lsbz

Quote
treaclefingers
Some people like Michael Jackson much better than the Beatles, and they're right, for them.

But for different reasons if the music wasn't as good. It depends on what you want, but if the appreciation shifts from music to visuals and production; the music is dying to a certain extent. It's gradual, so you don't notice it much, but it definitely has changed for the worse.

So the Elvis worshippers or MOP TOP freaks didn't worry about the visuals...just the audio? come on! It's always been a packaged-deal with popular music, don't delude yourself.

I wrote that it's a gradual shift, and who knows what Elvis fans bought records for. In any time you have more visual and more musical artists; I was talking about the very general trend. And I've never been much of an Elvis fan, but I think he was an oasis of spirituality compared to Michael Jackson. The Beatles were even on a higher level, I think there is no comparison in that respect. And I've been much criticized here for not finding the Beatles good enough.

Quote
71Tele
Is there a "natural" relationship between the English language and pop music?

No.

Quote
71Tele
I remember reading somewhere that the singers in ABBA learned their lyrics phonetically so they could sing in English.

They probably wanted to have a bigger market.

I would also trace the decline of popular music to the decline of the vinyl LP as the dominant means of listening to music. LP sides were perfect 20-minute listening units, two to a slab. Then the CD took over, and people who had no business trying to go beyond 40 minutes felt compelled to try to fill every minute of space on the damn things. So there was an increased release of unworthy material that was had been either left on the cutting room floor or used as b-sides.

CDs also changed the pacing of albums: instead of your best songs on the album being your side openers and closers, people tended to put all the best material at the beginning of the disc. This essentially eliminated the importance of the side 1 closer and the first track on side 2. And with CDs being such long listening units (who sits through an entire hour or more of the same album?), they diminished the importance of the disc closer.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I don't think "popular" music ever died or is dying.

I think it has become more diluted than anything else because you can still find a lot of great bands/artists out there.

it's always been a case of finding the pearls amid the morass. not sure it's any more "diluted" than it's ever been.

I agree that you can always find stuff out there worth listening to, but you have to really look for it. But do you really think that top 40 music is just as interesting today as it was say around 40 to 60 years ago?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-05 17:17 by ryanpow.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I don't think "popular" music ever died or is dying.

I think it has become more diluted than anything else because you can still find a lot of great bands/artists out there.

it's always been a case of finding the pearls amid the morass. not sure it's any more "diluted" than it's ever been.

I agree that you can always find stuff out there worth listening to, but you have to really look for it. But do you really think that top 40 music is just as interesting today as it was say around 40 to 60 years ago?

Exactly. Now you have one good single in a couple of years, and in the early seventies you still had dozens each year, if not more.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-05 17:50 by lsbz.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I don't think "popular" music ever died or is dying.

I think it has become more diluted than anything else because you can still find a lot of great bands/artists out there.

it's always been a case of finding the pearls amid the morass. not sure it's any more "diluted" than it's ever been.

I agree that you can always find stuff out there worth listening to, but you have to really look for it. But do you really think that top 40 music is just as interesting today as it was say around 40 to 60 years ago?

my tastes run more toward much of the older music - but there are plenty of people whose taste would run more toward much of today's music. there are no rights or wrongs to a question of what's better or more interesting. it's like some people want to make a contest out of it or something. music evolves and it's ALWAYS interesting to follow the evolution if you're truly a music fan.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I don't think "popular" music ever died or is dying.

I think it has become more diluted than anything else because you can still find a lot of great bands/artists out there.

it's always been a case of finding the pearls amid the morass. not sure it's any more "diluted" than it's ever been.

I agree that you can always find stuff out there worth listening to, but you have to really look for it. But do you really think that top 40 music is just as interesting today as it was say around 40 to 60 years ago?

Exactly. Now you have one good single in a couple of years, and in the early seventies you still had dozens each year, if not more.

"good" as defined by whom?

Quote
StonesTod
"good" as defined by whom?

Only time will really tell. I once read that Van Gogh only sold a couple of paintings in his lifetime, and now he has his own museum. Popularity is not a valid measure.

Quote
Edward Twining
I find much of the post 1984 output unlistenable

Thats called getting old Edward

Edward, you're overlooking the vast subdivisions that have taken place in popular music, arguably since the end of the '60s and the break-up of the Beatles, when such niches as all-hard rock groups began emerging. There's plenty of independent music being made that I think will at least interest if not satisfy you. But you need to dig more deeply than pop radio. You may be right about the hyper-commercialization of today's pop music (at least acts like Bobby Vee and certainly the Stones seemed to have considered themselves musicians first; "artists" like Beyonce seem to see no difference between their recordings, movie roles, and product endorsements). But today's pop music is not the place to look for creativity. If you still lean toward rock music (and Tod's right, the decline of rock within popular music is its own topic, which you may be confusing with your more general statements), take a look perhaps at Pitchfork.com. They are young writers who are often maddeningly obtuse about older music, but still fairly good at nosing out quality in new acts.

Quote
cc
But you need to dig more deeply than pop radio.

I'm not going to dig deeper than pop radio or other common sources. I think the current fragmetation was caused by lack of quality, and not the other way around. If some good music is being made, I will hear it soon enough, irrespective of sources.

So long as someone somewhere is enjoying it, I don't see how popular music can ever truely die.

I haven't read through all the responses, but Edward: could your age possibly have anything to do with your line of thinking? Maybe it's just that you can no longer relate to music-type that is aimed at a younger audience.

Persoanlly, I'm not such a huge pop fan these days, but I can still dig a litle Rihanna and Only Girl (In The World) IMO, this is what good pop music is all about.
><







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-05 20:47 by Big Al.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
cc
But you need to dig more deeply than pop radio.

I'm not going to dig deeper than pop radio or other common sources.

then your opinion will be as superficial and throwaway as today's pop music. Enjoy!

Quote
cc

Quote
lsbz

Quote
cc
But you need to dig more deeply than pop radio.

I'm not going to dig deeper than pop radio or other common sources.

then your opinion will be as superficial and throwaway as today's pop music. Enjoy!

isbz: please file a complaint ;-)

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
lsbz

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I don't think "popular" music ever died or is dying.

I think it has become more diluted than anything else because you can still find a lot of great bands/artists out there.

it's always been a case of finding the pearls amid the morass. not sure it's any more "diluted" than it's ever been.

I agree that you can always find stuff out there worth listening to, but you have to really look for it. But do you really think that top 40 music is just as interesting today as it was say around 40 to 60 years ago?

Exactly. Now you have one good single in a couple of years, and in the early seventies you still had dozens each year, if not more.

"good" as defined by whom?

Actually, Ive noticed lately when I flip around the dial there are some good singles out there, one of them by an artists discussed on this board, Adele. I think there will always be good stuff that finds its way to get out there somehow.
My point is that the overall main stream top 40 sound I think has just really bottomed out, and it really at an all time low. Just my opinion.

also, I've noticed there's a lot of things I don't appreciate at the time they came out but then 10 or 15 years later I think "Oh, that was actually pretty good". So we'll see but I don't know.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
lsbz

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I don't think "popular" music ever died or is dying.

I think it has become more diluted than anything else because you can still find a lot of great bands/artists out there.

it's always been a case of finding the pearls amid the morass. not sure it's any more "diluted" than it's ever been.

I agree that you can always find stuff out there worth listening to, but you have to really look for it. But do you really think that top 40 music is just as interesting today as it was say around 40 to 60 years ago?

Exactly. Now you have one good single in a couple of years, and in the early seventies you still had dozens each year, if not more.

"good" as defined by whom?

Actually, Ive noticed lately when I flip around the dial there are some good singles out there, one of them by an artists discussed on this board, Adele. I think there will always be good stuff that finds its way to get out there somehow.
My point is that the overall main stream top 40 sound I think has just really bottomed out, and it really at an all time low. Just my opinion.

also, I've noticed there's a lot of things I don't appreciate at the time they came out but then 10 or 15 years later I think "Oh, that was actually pretty good". So we'll see but I don't know.

so you really just need to wait another 10-15 years and you'll adjust your new "all-time low" period accordingly....

Perhaps, But I can't imagine it getting worse than Fergie and Lady Ga Ga. thats a scary thought,

Quote
StonesTod
so you really just need to wait another 10-15 years and you'll adjust your new "all-time low" period accordingly....

It can be nice to hear music of any past era that you have lived in, but I think that's more nostalgia. The phenomenon exists, but you don't get real good music that way. It's more like that the eighties were still better than the nineties, etcetera.