The Science Behind Why Pop Music Sucks
Unless you’re a dedicated listener of Top 40 pop music, you’ve probably found yourself at one point or another complaining about the current state of mainstream music and how it’s too simplistic and unoriginal. Well you might be surprised to find out that this is more than just an opinion. There’s actually scientific evidence to back your hypothesis up.
Something else that we have been saying here at Saving Country music for years is that people can enjoy good, creative, complex, and thought-provoking music better than they can most pop music—that the experience of listening to music with a more artistic focus can be more fulfilling, more enjoyable, and longer lasting than the short-term sugar rush of a catchy, but fleetingly-potent simplistic beat set to inane, repeating lyrics.
For years we’ve known that listening to classical music can boost intelligence in the short-term, aka the “Mozart Effect.” But intelligence and enjoyment are two different things. Though there has yet to be a scientific study directly linking the complexity of music to a more enriching musical experience, many recent studies on the effects of music on the brain have given us insight into why the loss of artistry and variety in music may mean a less fulfilling musical experience, and thus, a less fulfilling life.
So let’s take a deeper look at the science. And I promise, we’ll try to keep it as simple as possible.
Music Is Getting More Simplistic & Less Diverse
Of course this is what many curmudgeoney music listeners have been saying for years, but now there’s actually scientific evidence to back it up. A project called the Million Song Dataset initially launched in 2011 by Columbia University set out to aggregate metadata for a million contemporary popular music tracks and use it to discover trends and other useful information. By using “timbre” to distinguish and grade songs, the study found that on a scientific level, music is becoming less diverse.
From Scientific Report’s interpretation of the Million Song Dataset:
This evidences a growing homogenization of the global timbral palette. It also points towards a progressive tendency to follow more fashionable, mainstream sonorities…These rather low rank correlations would act as an attenuator of the sensation that contemporary popular music is becoming more homogeneous, timbrically speaking. The fact that frequent timbres of a certain time period become infrequent after some years could mask global homogeneity trends to listeners.
Simple Explanation: Songs are sounding more and more similar to each other every year, and relying on the same, simplistic structures and tones. As the red diamonds trend down, so does the diversity in popular music. As can be seen in the graph, music diversity peaked in the mid 60’s to the early 70’s.
What does this mean? Two things: 1) That from a scientific standpoint, music is trending more toward the mono-genre, where all popular music sounds the same. 2) As much as contemporary music stars may insist that music needs to “change” or “evolve,” this study shows that modern music is actually devolving, and lacks fundamental differences between songs, and even genres. This study also may explain the nostalgia many music listeners feel for the “classic” era of popular music, whether that music is rock, country, or even pop music. Music of the past has more diversity, and so it holds more appeal. But why?
Dopamine and ASMR: Why Our Brains Like Music
Not to demystify music completely, and there’s so much we still don’t know, but the reason we enjoy music is because it causes chemical and neurological reactions in our brains that make us feel good. In fairness, some of these positive chemical reactions can happen with simplistic pop music too, but these reactions tend to be shorter lived.
The two most well-known and studied reactions to music on our brains are dopamine reactions, and ASMR reactions.
Dopamine is the dope of the brain. It is a basic organic chemical that works as a neurotransmitter and “rewards” your body for certain behaviors. Many things that humans do to “feel good” break down to basically fooling the brain into telling the body to release dopamine. For example, both cocaine and methamphetamine cause the brain to release dopamine, so you’re actually not getting high on the drugs themselves, but the reaction to them by your body. The same thing happens when you eat “comfort food” that is high in fat and calories, or sweets. Sex and physical contact also cause a dopamine response, and so does music.
Those “euphoric” moments you feel when listening to music, or the sense of comfort you might feel after listening to a song, even one with a dark or negative story, are many times the fault of dopamine. But I’m sure you’ve noticed that the more you listen to a song, the less potent it becomes, or that sometimes you must listen to a song a number of times before you begin to feel its effects. In the first instance where a song becomes worn out, this is because just like drugs, our bodies build up a tolerance to the particular dopamine reaction a song will give our brains. Walking away from that song for a while and returning might see the return of that feeling of euphoria. As for why it takes other songs time to warm up to your brain, that is because your brain has yet to recognize those euphoric moments inherent in the song. Burying the dopamine triggers in a song through complexity of the composition is a way to prolong the potency of a song’s dopamine reactions.
Have you ever wondered why songs that you immediately like wear out quicker, and songs it takes some time to warm up to you end up liking for longer? This is the “sugar high” or short-term enjoyment that pop music can give the brain. But music that is more complex or “heady” can enact a dopamine response that is longer lasting; that stays with you well after the song is over. Ever wondered why a song gets stuck in your head? Because just like drugs, dopamine can be addictive, and is craved by the brain.
ASMR or Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response
This is a very new side of studying how music effects the brain, and may be somewhat linked to dopamine eventually. But where dopamine is a chemical that can be released by different parts of the body like the immune system or the digestive system, ASMR seems to be more neurological in nature.
Also called “brain orgasms,” ASMR reactions can come from very simple things like the sound of a human whisper. A recent article in the Houston Press quotes researcher Andrew MacMuiris describing ASMR reactions as, “…a tingling sensation on the scalp, down the spine, and even in other areas of the body, such as the limbs. This is also accompanied by feelings of euphoria and relaxation.”
Apparently each individual’s reactions to ASMR triggers can be different, and can even be enhanced when the listener focuses in on the triggers when they’re listening to music. This makes for the possibility that an educated, more attentive music listener could gain more enjoyment from a song than a passive listener. Like an art appreciation class that teaches someone what to look for in visual art to understand its beauty or importance, knowing what to listen for in music can also make for a more pleasurable and fulfilling experience. “It’s emotional for me,” explains Annie Long in the Houston Press piece on ASMR’s. “If a song evokes a strong emotion, I get mad tingles. It definitely enhances the music, like you can feel the music in you instead of just hearing it.”
There is a similar phenomenon, or possibly the same phenomenon to ASMR known colloquially as “frission.”
Simple Explanation: The chemical and neurological reactions in the brain that music stimulates can be enhanced when the music is both composed with more complex “euphoric” moments, and when the listener is educated or experienced in what to listen for in music.
So what exactly stimulates all of these chemical and neurological “rewards” in the brain, and why is music that is more artistic or complex simulate more of these positive anatomical reactions?
Music Structure & The Minor Key
To keep it as simple as possible, all Western music is made up of a system of chords and notes that are arranged into structures that build tension and resolution into music. Think of the old “Do-Re-Me-Fa-So-La-Ti-Do” but think of it as the numbers 1 through 8, with each number symbolizing a specific chord. The way musician’s arrange their songs, they use this system of chords to create tension in the music, and then resolve it. Though you may not perceptibly hear this when you’re listening to a song, this chord system is vital to keeping your ear engaged with the music. When a chord resolves, usually at the end of a verse, it gives the mind and body a pleasurable feeling.
Where artistry comes in is how a musician uses these chords in unique, unusual, or unpredictable ways. Remember above when we were talking about dopamine and how the body can build up a tolerance to it? This is what can happen when a song is too predictable or cliche. There is no magic or “soul” to it because the composer is using the same tricks that have been used many times before. That is why to some educated or active music listeners, pop music, however catchy, has no effect on them, while complex, artistic, or unique music can sound fresh and new, and stimulate those positive chemical reactions in the body, and in a more potent, and longer-lasting manner.
But none of this is considering how a listener might be able to identify with the lyrics of a song, with either a personal reaction of nostalgia or empathy with what is being said through the music. These things can add yet another layer of enjoyment.
The Minor Key
Simply put, songs in the major key sound bright and happy, and songs in the minor key sound dark, and this is universally-recognized by the human brain. This doesn’t always take into consideration the lyrical content. Some minor key songs can be happy, and vice versa. But the reason we can listen to songs that make us sad and still somehow enjoy them is possibly another key to how well-crafted songs can deliver a better, more fulfilling listening experience than simple ones.
Most pop music used to be made in the major key, because it is perceived as a more accessible and happier sound, though in recent years that has changed where more pop songs now reside in the minor key. A 2008 music study concluded that the dissonance of the minor key can be more likeable than the major key, and so can music that is dark or depressing in nature, because it can stimulate feelings of empathy or camaraderie. As the saying goes, misery loves company, and darker compositions of more complex and artistic music tend to be more stimulating in the long-term than saccharine, bright-sounding major key happy songs. And despite the dark sound or content, sad songs tend to make us feel calmer and happier afterwards, even more than songs of a positive nature.
Though the minor key or more complex compositions can result in a more stimulating listening experience, that’s not necessarily the case if the listener can’t initially find enough appeal in a song to give it time to work. This is where accessibility plays into music. The reason why the music industry manufactures so much pop music is because it easily appeals to the masses. You don’t have to tell people what to listen for, or rely on an active listener for the music to work. Artists who are able to embed accessible elements into otherwise complex compositions can benefit by giving a song wider appeal, allowing for the audience to warm up to the composition.
So the fight for the soul of modern music is not simply about taste. There is certain scientific evidence that music is getting worse, and that music that is more artistic and complex is better for us on a very fundamental physiological level. If there is any wide arcing conclusion to take away from what we know about how music effects us, it is that education is key to creating music listeners who understand the value of what to listen for in music. Just like sugar and fast food, there’s no denying the appeal of pop music for some, or the ease of accessibility it benefits from in modern society, both in sonic structure and simple availability. But healthy music listeners and a healthy music environment is possible by spreading the knowledge of why we love music, and why it effects us like it does.
August 12, 2013 @ 11:39 am
Very good write up, Trig.
I am very curious who’s music it is that has that one extremely high blip in 78-79…
August 12, 2013 @ 1:35 pm
Maybe post-punk and New Wave (Joy Division, Talking Heads, early Elvis Costello, etc.)? 😀
August 13, 2013 @ 11:26 am
Van Halen of course!!!!!! Had to be them no doubt.
December 10, 2013 @ 1:22 am
NIRVANA, I guess…
March 23, 2015 @ 1:23 pm
Nirvana was 90’s
October 24, 2014 @ 3:27 pm
Maybe Pink Floyd’s The Wall, it was released in 1979.
March 19, 2018 @ 9:39 am
Pink Floyds Animals, it was their most progressive album
August 12, 2013 @ 12:17 pm
Rush’s Hemispheres album was ’78…
August 12, 2013 @ 12:33 pm
“… the experience of listening to music with a more artistic focus can be more fulfilling, more enjoyable, and longer lasting than the short-term sugar rush of a catchy, but fleetingly-potent simplistic beat set to inane, repeating lyrics.”
AC/DC and their millions of fans would beg to differ with that statement. However, all kidding aside, GREAT article. White I’m always weary of the “complain about the present, praise the past” approach that the general public seems to take, I like that you actually presented evidence for that opinion (in terms of music, anyway). I’ll second the feeling that a catchy chorus does not stay with me as long as lyrical meaning does. There are plenty of songs that I have fun listening to but can’t remember hours later. A song that affects me in an emotional way has a much better chance of remaining in my thoughts. An example of the latter for me would be in 2007 when Emerson Drive’s single “Moments” climbed up the country charts. Call it “pop” or “cliche” all you want since it’s mainstream; I connected with that song and what the lyrics were saying.
Now, I don’t expect you to be an expert on this study, Trigger, but did any of your sources happen to cover how singing might affect the dopamine release? Or whether having A.D.D. or A.D.H.D or some other attention-altering disorder might affect how one enjoys music or how much satisfaction one might get from a simplistic, catchy song? Or what if someone simply doesn’t care about music? Does that mean they’re not “listening” correctly or does the dopamine release not work the same way? You’ve intrigued me with this article.
August 12, 2013 @ 12:35 pm
“Remember above when we were talking about dopamine and how the body can build up a tolerance to it? This is what can happen when a song is too predictable or cliche.”
What if someone prefers “predictable” music to music that tries to be different or unpredictable?
August 12, 2013 @ 3:57 pm
The thing is, the science would lead us to believe that we don’t like predictability in music. The more unique the music is to us, the more likely it is to deliver a physiologically stimulating effect. Having said that, one of the reasons tension and resolution in chord structures work so well is because our brains predict them happening.
You may crave something familiar, or something you know how to listen to, to get the most enjoyment from. For example, I never try to critique pure hip-hop, because I really have no idea what to listen for.
August 12, 2013 @ 3:53 pm
I’m definitely not an expert on any of this and am not trying to represent myself as one. The approach I took to this was to try and consume all the research and regurgitate it in a manner that would be easily understandable.
One article I read did touch on ADD and ADHD, but after spending 15 minutes looking for it, I can’t find it. I want to say they had studied music and its effect on neural development, and how it can be used to help focus people with ADD, maybe as part of the Mozart Effect or ASMR. If I find it, I will post it here.
August 13, 2013 @ 12:45 pm
Seems like now there is a generation that has been raised on nashville bullshit which is not country music at all, but just bad pop.In most cities the radio markets classic rock, hip hop and Tejano with absolutely no alternative. I love honkytonk or Texas music which is disappearing from the music scene in large cities.
August 12, 2013 @ 12:54 pm
Great. Scientific evidence for why everyone needs to be a hipster or have a hipster mentality.
August 12, 2013 @ 1:03 pm
“Why do we have all of these new bands? Everyone knows rock and roll achieved perfection in 1974.
August 12, 2013 @ 1:57 pm
The Australian comedy troupe “Axis of Awesome” hit on this a while ago with their song called 4 chords. Basically every hit song of the last 40 yrs had the same chords.
August 12, 2013 @ 2:24 pm
This is pretty fascinating stuff!
I wonder where power-pop would fit in all this. It may be “pop” music — concise, catchy guitar-based pop-rock fueled by hooks, driving beats and (usually) pleasant harmonies — yet very little of it would be considered “mainstream,” though it seems to have a pretty passionate, cultish following.
For me, when it comes to picking favorite bands, albums and songs from this subgenre, I suppose it *does* boil down to relative complexity and diversity; albums like Big Star’s ‘Radio City,’ the dB’s ‘Stands for Decibels’ and Fountains of Wayne’s ‘Utopia Parkway’ have songs that make me insanely happy whenever I hear them, but also quirkier or more low-key moments that took at least a few listens to grow on me.
August 12, 2013 @ 2:49 pm
Overall, your feature is spot-on, but there is one aspect of your commentary that I contend with, and that is the major-minor distinction.
While I agree with you on your points regarding the appeal of the dissonance of the minor scale, the fact of the matter is that pop music has also been trending consistently toward the minor key since the early 1970’s too. A recent study by E. Glenn Schellenberg and Christian von Scheve found, after analyzing five decades of hit songs on the Billboard Hot 100 chart (most notably their emotional cues, tempos and modes)………concluded the following:
“The most striking finding is the change in key. Songs composed in a major key tend to sound warm and effervescent (think “We Can Work it Out” by the Beatles, released in 1965), whereas songs in a minor key can sound darker and more melancholic (think “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” by Green Day, released in 2005). Over the last few decades, popular songs have switched from major to minor keys: In the 1960s, 85 percent of the songs were written in a major key, compared with only about 40 percent of them now. Broadly speaking, the sound has shifted from bright and happy to something more complicated.”
So higher dopamine scores were detected among songs in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, at a time where the lion’s share of pop sons were written in the MAJOR key. Now, dopamine scores are at a historic low while roughly 60% of popular songs have been composed in the MINOR key.
It doesn’t diminish your overall argument, Trigger, but it is nonetheless something to dwell upon indeed.
August 12, 2013 @ 3:43 pm
But does pop music these days even truly reside in a key, or does it pick one chord, or even one series of notes, and simply repeat them over and over? The tones they use may be set in the minor key, and I’ll stand corrected on that point. But I read that article when researching for this story this, and when they asserted that popular music was becoming more complex and sophisticated, I laughed out loud. According to the “Million Song Dataset” study cited above, this is certainly not the case. The Huff Post piece seems to base their arguments that music is becoming more sophisticated simply because it is residing more in the minor key. I think this is simply more a commentary on taste, and as the Huff Post said and I would agree, people are trending towards darker music because of socioeconomic reasons among others. But more sophisticated? I would respectfully disagree, and I think so would the science.
Nonetheless, the fact that more popular music is residing in the minor key is something I will correct and is an important point.
August 12, 2013 @ 5:31 pm
It’s nit picking, but worth mentioning: the conclusion of the study that yielded the “Mozart Effect” found an increase in spatial intelligence, not overall IQ (which is a subjective measurement in itself). And, if memory serves, attempts to replicate the study did not yield the same results. General belief is there’s no actual correlation.
August 12, 2013 @ 9:42 pm
Granted I did not read in great detail about the Mozart Effect when putting this together because it doesn’t really fit directly with the type of angle I wanted to take, but from what I understand there’s some consensus around the idea that classical music can raise IQ, but only in the short term. If there’s something definitive otherwise, I haven’t seen it, but I wouldn’t be surprised. I think most or all of the Mozart Effect studies have proved the change is subtle. But it still may give some insight in how the brain can react positively to music.
August 12, 2013 @ 10:31 pm
Absolutely agree. Great examples are the “triumphant” effect of modulation, or going from minor to major (and vice versa), etc. Hell, it’s the reason people love sad country songs.
August 12, 2013 @ 9:15 pm
Interesting read, thanks for sharing that.
I have one question regarding the “timbre test” aspect of the study though. Are they talking about the sound of the recordings or the songs themselves? As the science of recording music has evolved and there are certain accepted practices that yield the best results for a given sound, I could see one being able to make the case that recordings sound pretty more similar today as opposed to back in the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s when some recordings sounded awesome and some sounded shitty because recording was kind of like the wild west.
August 12, 2013 @ 9:46 pm
“Timber” seems to take in a multi-faceted array of sonic measurement, and for a more detailed explanation, I would encourage you to click on the highlighted link in the section and read more. I understand what you’re saying about recording quality, but I think it’s effect would be minimal. And as you can see from the Million Song Dataset’s graph, the 50’s were actually a pretty poor decade for diversity and complexity as well. And if you think about it, 50’s culture was pretty homogenous, maybe even more homogenous than today.
August 13, 2013 @ 7:53 am
They don’t show it on that graph but right above the “10” is a horizontal blue line that represents George Jones.
Hibernation Tiddy Bits | Rawhide And Velvet
August 13, 2013 @ 8:01 am
[…] Huh?Â Â […]
August 13, 2013 @ 3:23 pm
“Songs composed in a major key tend to sound warm and effervescent (think “We Can Work it Out” by the Beatles”
Bad example, the bridge of this tune is in the relative minor of the verse.
Grundge tends to be in a minor key. and the music is very gloomy.
” does it pick one chord, or even one series of notes, and simply repeat them over and over?”
that’s what they do. I agree with this completely. In fact they use the same notes, tune after tune. There’s no melody at all.
pop music now, has descended to the level of basic nursery rhymes. Some nursery rhymes are far too complex, to be used as melodic material in today’s pop tunes.
I think that most current pop tune “melodies” consist of some variation of the first three notes in the major scale. think “three blind mice” then pick a pop tune, you’ll find it’s not much different than three blind mice.
take away the lyrics, and there’s virtually no difference from one tune to the next.
part of the key for writing successful, but good pop tunes I think is the balance between it sounding familiar enough to catch the ear, but different enough, to be interesting, something that will be worth listening to for many years.
So, example Burt Bacharach is a master of this skill.
and, of course, the Beatles. And Willie Nelson.
Thanks, very interesting article.
August 14, 2013 @ 11:16 am
There’s only one song, and Adam and Eve wrote it; the rest is a variation on a theme.
Keith Richards, c. 1997
August 15, 2013 @ 5:44 am
I’m not exactly sure where to leave these comments, but I figured this is just about as good a place as any. As Katy Perry and Lady Gaga overhype the release of their new albums it occurred to me: Since there is no longer any diversity in the music itself, the diversity needs to be manufactured in the aesthetics. You can justify making a song that sounds like Ace of Base as long as you wear enough meat suits.
Second, if I were to ask you the last time a song written by A.P. Carter charted on Billboard, what would you guess?
Well, you would probably be surprised to find out that he wrote the current #6 song on the Billboard Hot 100, “Cups.” It has been in the top 10 for 5 weeks. If that’s not odd enough, it is a novelty song, based on an amateur YouTube video, performed by a well-known actress, from an unheralded movie, that is almost a year old. What is going on?
August 15, 2013 @ 6:44 am
The cup song! Recently, my daughter’s swim team had a talent show and at least three sets of young girls did this song, complete with cups they would turn over, along with hand clapping. At that point, I figured there was some pop culture thing going on that I was blissfully unaware of. I do remember thinking the song had somewhat of a old time/classic country feel to it. At least the lyrics. And the “miss me when I’m gone” lyric made me think of A.P. Carter’s singing “miss me when I’m gone” with his baritone voice on the Carter Family song “Will You Miss Me When I’m Gone.” Who knew?
The Science Behind Why Pop Music Doesn’t Suck | henley edition
August 15, 2013 @ 3:29 pm
[…] one of those headlines that make you just face-palm right off the bat. The article entitled “The Science Behind Why Pop Music Sucks,” starts off with an eyebrow-raising […]
August 17, 2013 @ 7:48 pm
pop music sucks because some of us resist government brain washing. This is the end of the world as we know it…but I feel fine…
August 18, 2013 @ 9:59 am
Ah, the good old mid 1960’s to about 1979….When pop music based on “rock” was in its heyday…new sounds, new instruments (12-string guitars), lyrics from love to anti-war songs…experimentation with everything from various meters of beat to synthesizers, to incorporating orchestras (Moody Blues, ELP, YES). It was all very fresh sounding. After nearly 40 years though, it is pretty stale now. And having record labels use focus groups of a bunch of 18 years olds to determine what songs to release just dampens all creativity. Music is now made on computers by what I call programmers instead of composers. And the sonic landscape is much the poorer for it. I’m glad to have come of age in the 1970’s. The music then was a hell of a ride. Will any of today’s kids look back with any fondness on any Katy Perry or Lady Gaga song the same way I do with say Creedence Clearwater Revival or ELP? I surely doubt it.
February 15, 2017 @ 6:25 am
Try Led Zepplin! A Whole Lotta Love! Black Mountain Slide! Misty Mountain Hop (Lord Of The Rings meme)
August 18, 2013 @ 12:36 pm
Regarding why songs get stuck in the human mind… Why are my earworms often songs I HATE?!
August 20, 2013 @ 8:52 am
Music diversity peaked prior to…
Extreme Metal (grind, death, thrash, speed, industrial, etc)
Punk in all its permutations
The shit on the radio is all the same but does NWA sound like Napalm Death,
KMFDM, Primus, Nirvana and The Fall?
Just because radio country music is rap with a banjo doesn’t mean musical diversity hasn’t grown leaps and bounds since 1970.
August 20, 2013 @ 8:58 am
If you read my theory on the mono-genre, it states that as all popular music is collapsing into one, similar-sounding style, micro-genres emerge of very diverse styles, but with much smaller support and interest. The two phenomenons parallel each other, so even though corporate music may become less diverse, independent music will become more diverse.
May 31, 2014 @ 4:23 pm
Hey, I’m super glad to find this article and much thanks to whoever wrote it. I have lots of simplistic-music-loving friends who claim it’s all a matter of taste. I gave them the link to this, and I’m currently waiting for their reactions. 😀
I hate to nit-pick, but I think this article is missing three important questions. Other than that it’s perfect, I only say this because I think it’s important for everyone to add on, while just stating what was good doesn’t help. Anyway:
1. What is timbre? I know this myself (I’ve studied music theory), but the average Joe has no clue what it means. The example I personally use is that a A#5 on a piano sounds different than a A#5 on a flute. Timbre is what compromises the differences.
2. Why does it matter? I know you talked how people would enjoy music better if they listened to more complex, but I’m talking about more than this. Like, the music industry has always been unpredictable, but now it’s more so than ever, with untalented people scoring #1 hits and musical geniuses not making a cent. If complex music was more valued, there would still be big untalents and small talents, but for the most part, on average, true musicians would get the spotlight.
3. What can we do to fix it? No point in analyzing grim reality only to see what it is, mate. Might as well see how it can be improved while you’re at it. Personally, I’m trying to improve stuff by emailing all my stupid friends the link to this article. 🙂
Again, awesome job writing this. I learned a lot and it made my day.
Rogue Rock Radio
August 19, 2014 @ 5:49 pm
Now I have a scientific justification for starting a hard classic rock station because of my dissatisfaction with the corporate conglomerate clone stations that seem to content to force feed us clichÃ©, mediocre gruel (the food of choice in former Soviet Gulag prison) that we’re supposed to swallow and enjoy. If you like hard classic rock off he beaten path, then listen to roguerockradio.com, Rock Radio Con Huevos.
October 16, 2014 @ 7:08 pm
Listen to CKY
January 11, 2015 @ 6:50 pm
You only used “for years” six times. How shall we understand without reading it at least ten times?
February 16, 2016 @ 6:31 am
That is why you should stop picking on country rock. It is a million times better than country pop will ever be.
March 31, 2016 @ 1:57 pm
There is a secret aganda behind all the super soft, whiny, bubble gum pop and ‘alternative’ music being shoved down our throats. It started in the early 90’s. A relatively quick net search can show you what I mean. You didn’t actually think anyone would pay money to hear Courtney’s love hole scream a bunch of crap, did you? Yeah, it really does boil down to the super rich, super greedy pieces of human excrement making even more money by keeping us all down. Now ya gotta look it up. . .
March 31, 2016 @ 2:22 pm
You know, I’m not gonna lie. I read through this all very briefly and I gotta say one thing. This whole “diversity” in music is uhh great and all. . but. . . I think to some readers diversity means music with high all the way to low notes. To some it’s where you draw the lines between genres of music. I think for a lot of the readers here the heart of the issue is really this: when will music be fun again? I think there is a co relation between artists and bands who have fun making the music, and the fans having fun listening to it. That’s actually what it means to be an artist. All the biggest, highest selling artists are the ones who have the most fun ever in their music . It’s a formula. . for success
The burgler king
May 8, 2018 @ 8:51 am
Even the pop songs today use tension and variation. They have to have you ever heard a song without it? You probably wouldn’t survive the entire track due to boredom. You need to make compositions predictable and once in a while surprise the listener by throwing something unexpected in. Producers before the internet had to a lot of learning and discovery on their own and because of this developed unique styles and sounds. Today’s producer just looks up tutorials on YouTube and is never forced to develop a unique sound. They follow the tutorial and build songs only using these techniques. Music theory is not as widely understood as it once was (classic theory) and this has a major impact on the music that is released. Old thread I just wanted to add some 2018 insight.