Why is modern pop music so terrible?

[mikehalloran]

I need to hear this arabic Hotel California!

I know, right? I am not an Eagles fan but I have to find this again.

Good and bad music is an interesting thing. I have this idea for a cover band that only plays the most universally panned music out there, We Built this City, Nickleback, Creed, plenty of 80's hits, and modern teen pop etc. call the band Endurance Test. The point is to run the gamut, because here's the thing, everyone likes some song or another that everyone else thinks is total garbage. So if someone walks into a show and after 5 songs figures out that all our set is just the least liked songs, they get all smug and self satisfied in righteous piety, until we start playing something they like, and they completely don't get why it's on the list!

Blue Swede's version of Hooked on a Feeling?

When I did the music mix for my high school reunion a couple of weeks ago, I threw in a little of the stupid stuff, like Chick a Boom by Danny Dewdrop. As some of these came on, people would come up to me and share the memories these songs brought back.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

There is a bottom line here and it's called: taste.

It gets back to the old question of what is art? Like love, that's in the eye - or in this instance, the ear - of the beholder.

For me, art is any human expression that tells a story. I simply don't resonate with the story much popular music today tells. While the production values of a (now dated) song like Roar (or whatever Katie calls the eye of a tiger song) are quite good musically, the proclaiming of her personal greatness holds no sway with me. I can listen to the tune from a musical standpoint and appreciate the art, but the story is mostly lost on me. Maybe because the hook is about how loud the protagonist can roar? I haven't given it much thought before now so I'm pissing in the wind a bit here.

Commercial success is another thing altogether. As stated earlier, I've heard some great underground grunge bands that I really like. They'll never have a hit tune but the art that goes into their work if far superior to some of the most successful and highly polished tunes that have made millions. That's because they're better *storytellers* IMO.

[stubbsonic]

While the production values of a (now dated) song like Roar (or whatever Katie calls the eye of a tiger song) are quite good musically, the proclaiming of her personal greatness holds no sway with me. I can listen to the tune from a musical standpoint and appreciate the art, but the story is mostly lost on me. Maybe because the hook is about how loud the protagonist can roar? I haven't given it much thought before now so I'm pissing in the wind a bit here.

You make a great point about musical taste. (of course, I'd say that since it is the point I had also made in this thread)

I'll just add that the song, Roar! is not about Perry's "personal greatness" or how loudly she can roar. I think the reason it resonates with her fans is that it is an anthem about overcoming adversity, about (perhaps) quiet/gentle people who, after some kind of exploitation or holding back, finally find their inner strength or find their voice of protest. It quotes Mohammed Ali in there. I don't think it's a brilliant song, per se, but I understand why a kid who gets picked on at school would find it inspiring and comforting.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Ok. Bad example. Maybe I'm just sick of hearing it at Wallgreens.

[James Steele]

Blue Swede's version of Hooked on a Feeling?

I grew up listening to 70s AM radio... 70s pop... and honestly it's a guilty pleasure. Not so guilty really. The craftsmanship and economy in the songwriting was really impressive. You got in and got out in 2:30... 3:00 tops. I am a big David Gates fan from Bread. He was a brilliant songwriter who could say a lot quickly.

Pop music from the 70s, IMHO, was in a whole different league. Witness the popularity of the Guardians of the Galaxy movie franchise. The soundtrack to those movies, especially the first, I believe was in large part responsible for its success. So many people I know came out of that movie commenting on just how great the music was.

[Phil O]

I am a big David Gates fan from Bread. He was a brilliant songwriter who could say a lot quickly.

I'm a little older than you, but I have to admit I was exposed to a fair amount of Bread back in the day. They got lots of air play back then and many of their songs do bring back memories.

Say what you will about pop music, but I have to agree with James on this one, guys.

Philippe

[FMiguelez]

The only things I really like about pop music, EDM, etc., are the production and creative studio tricks and techniques using our current technology.
I enjoy that aspect, even when the music leaves a lot to be desired. The actual music from too many songs sound to me like melodies/harmony from Marry Has A Liitle Lamb... Like too simple, unchallenging, boring.
So the creative studio techniques are the ONLY thing that make me listen to that stuff as necessary.

Other than that, all I really need are my beloved Russian/East european masters (Shostakovich, Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, etc).
One of my little nephews already whistles the invasion theme from the Leningrad symphony instead of whatever children her age usually like

[FMiguelez]

There is a bottom line here and it's called: taste.

It gets back to the old question of what is art? Like love, that's in the eye - or in this instance, the ear - of the beholder.

For me, art is any human expression that tells a story.

Story-telling is VERY important for me as well. Essential, actually.

Would you guys accept this? >
Art ceases to be art when just about anyone, with no training or talent, can do it as well as a "master"
(your average Joe or a child monkeying around with a canvas and paint). Then it's no more special than graffiti on a wall or a primary-school sketch pad.

Like Boulez' early works (not his later ones)... A 7 year-old kid banging on the piano randomly would't sound too differently from one of his early pieces...

Is this art?
(I obviously love serialism and atonality, but not when every parameter is serialized):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmErwN02fX0

[mikehalloran]

Would you guys accept this? >
Art ceases to be art when just about anyone, with no training or talent, can do it as well as a "master"
...

No.

[Luke]

Someone once said its the "dumbassification of America." I would say it's the "dumbassification of humanity."

An agenda of distraction.

A celebration of the "monsters of the id."

Pushing "Rivalry over Rapport."

An all out "emotional air raid" that suggests we are all separate which promotes "divide and conquer."

I could go on. That's just a few reasons why I think pop music is so freaking terrible.

But what do I really know? Just my opinion.

[Michael Canavan]

Art ceases to be art when just about anyone, with no training or talent, can do it as well as a "master"
(your average Joe or a child monkeying around with a canvas and paint). Then it's no more special than graffiti on a wall or a primary-school sketch pad.

I would say art ceases to be art when it's only about product, when it attempts to highjack emotions to sell you product. You can argue that "a child monkeying around with a canvas and paint", given the right scenario can create great art without training, (victims of war often create deep harrowing pieces without training for instance), and I would argue that a talented classically trained musician can write a song intended to get you to choose a particular car insurance that has far less soul.

To clarify though, there's nothing wrong with making money and producing music that's intended for commercials, it's just hard for me to call it art, it's more like a craft, like cabinet making rather than painting. I would say the Disney and boy band kids who get record contracts in their teens, who have talented craftsmen behind the scenes coming up with slick candy pop for them to lip sync while doing choreographed dance moves to falls into that same category. <<- that's where I think the modern pop fails, there hasn't emerged any Carol Kings or Elton Johns from it, it's too safe.

[FMiguelez]

Sorry. Double post.

[FMiguelez]

Perhaps art , however we define it, has more to do with the viewer/listener than the artist creator? Maybe its appreciation (or lack thereof) says more about the former than the latter?

I just think that when art stops being special, when just about everyone can reproduce an equal or better piece than the artist himself, then perhaps it was never art to begin with.

If we call just about anything 'art', then the concept loses its meaning and value that distinguishes from regular everyday stuff.

Or do we call art WHATEVER any Homo sapiens gets to do? Where do we draw the line? Should we even attempt to draw a line?

I don't know... All I know is what I like and what I don't like. I can still call art even things I dislike, since they may still exhibit a high degree of talent and craftmanship like say, Haydn's music... But that's they key... It must exhibit some degree of craftmanship!

[terrybritton]

Someone once said its the "dumbassification of America." I would say it's the "dumbassification of humanity."

An agenda of distraction.

A celebration of the "monsters of the id."

Pushing "Rivalry over Rapport."

An all out "emotional air raid" that suggests we are all separate which promotes "divide and conquer."

I could go on. That's just a few reasons why I think pop music is so freaking terrible.

But what do I really know? Just my opinion.

Well, part one of why I think that is (dumbification, etc.) would be to address the moment that media companies began targeting the 12-year old as the base audience.

Part two would be to consider that Marshall McLuhan in the 60's was not celebrating mass media, but was rather warning that Television and other new non-literary mass media would lead to exactly this sort of "dumbification" by reducing literacy on a grand scale, having the effect of returning mentalities globally to one of an industrial-era tribalism. I think that part contributes to the "us vs. them" effect and the current trend toward entitlement as a kind of blow-back. Of course, he also controversially argued that the content really had little to do with this effect, but the content does reflect the gradual change in values inherent in the attitudinal shift.

Thus - "12-year old child"-targeted content in the context of the medium and the resulting shifting values "works".

Click this link for some nice audio collected of Marshall McLuhan stuff, if you're interested in reviewing that sort of thing..

Terry

[mikehalloran]

Perhaps art , however we define it, has more to do with the viewer/listener than the artist creator? Maybe its appreciation (or lack thereof) says more about the former than the latter?

I just think that when art stops being special, when just about everyone can reproduce an equal or better piece than the artist himself, then perhaps it was never art to begin with.

If we call just about anything 'art', then the concept loses its meaning and value that distinguishes from regular everyday stuff.

Or do we call art WHATEVER any Homo sapiens gets to do? Where do we draw the line? Should we even attempt to draw a line?

I don't know... All I know is what I like and what I don't like. I can still call art even things I dislike, since they may still exhibit a high degree of talent and craftmanship like say, Haydn's music... But that's they key... It must exhibit some degree of craftmanship!

I consider Jackson Pollack the most important artist of the 20th C. and I'll go to the mat with that opinion (as long as there's good food and my glass is kept filled, of course). It's not because of his technical skills (yes, you can take that as a joke) but because, what asked what his work meant, he said it meant whatever you wanted it to mean. It was the viewer who gave meaning to the work, not the artist.

I think of that whenever someone tries to explain to me what a song means. I either get it or I don't. Explainations of origin only work if they're entertaining. I don't care that Beethoven struggled or Mozart had it easy when I'm listening to their work — yes, it's part of the back story but not important when I'm listening.

And I really, really, really will never care whom a song was written for — ever in any context unless I'm reading or writing a scholarly work.