The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[Paul Smeenus]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Lol @ Smashing Pumpkins being good music.

I'll always like (not love, but like) Gish, mainly because of the uber-thick production, aside from that tho, ick

[Ol’ Qwerty Bastard]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's a masterpiece of a post tbh. "No more jazz", insinuating that Dave Grohl is a good musician, media whores Oasis apparently "not giving a **** about what the media or anyone else says," "real music," etc. It's more than anyone could ask for.

I'd give it a 9/10 tbh, he left out the obligatory "where are the bands like Led Zepplin?" so I had to dock a point.

[sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

I'll always like (not love, but like) Gish, mainly because of the uber-thick production, aside from that tho, ick

Gish and Siamese Dream are really great records. Mellon Collie was half great. Adore was pretty great, underappreciated. Beyond that, I don't care.

[Tristan_Geoff]

Originally Posted by sidewinder

Gish and Siamese Dream are really great records. Mellon Collie was half great. Adore was pretty great, underappreciated. Beyond that, I don't care.

Zeitgeist is decent Sabbath worship at least. From what I've listened to their newest project isn't terrible either. But yeah, still nowhere near their early output.

[MusicNewb1981]

This isn't a rant thread, I see things getting better in the future. I just wanted to throw this out there to see if people have concluded the same thing and for feedback.

In doing an online search there are several Youtube videos and online articles basically arguing mainstream music has gone downhill. I think a few even referred to Academic and Scientific articles basically arguing the same point. So, a lot of people agree mainstream music has gone downhill. While I've read quite a few different reasons people have postulated as to why this is the case, the reason I haven't seen is the Economic reason i.e. good music is expensive to make with the risk of not reaping ideal returns.

Ever since Napster in the late nineties people in the internet age have been demanding free music. Prior to Napster and the internet age it was difficult to pirate music; going back to Vinyl, tape, and CD each medium of music required a physical medium. With the internet age you could get any song free from home without any effort or expense and many people largely did. The demand for free music started by Napster culminated in the streaming free music model of Spotify.

Now, now the downside of the free music model is, essentially, you get what you pay for. Meaning, you are going to get record companies producing the most inexpensive music and trying to sell it strictly on volume--number of plays. So, it is not that the public demands electronic drum kits, autotune, synthesized bass, appealing lyrics; it's that percussionists and drummers, qualified singers, bassists and horn parts, lyricists actually cost quite a bit of money to use. Under the free streaming model, where no on is paying, the record company can't make money on expensive music.

Another drawback, is the Economic model of the record company has inverted. Before the internet age, the artist would create music and the record company would distribute it and promote it. But that model is too expensive and risky. So now, the record company is charged of putting producers, writers on salary to make music and the goal of the, "artist," is just to sell it; the artist now is a commissioned salesman putting a face and charisma on the record companies music. Again, the danger in this is the record company has making and selling cheap music down to a science and, and, and they are also the gatekeepers keeping other artists out whose music is too expensive to produce.

In this model, the radio station isn't independent. It used to be radio was just funded by advertisement. Now, radio is solely advertisement...for the record companies, which share media parent companies. So, whereas the goal of the radio station was to discover and expose new music now there whole goal is to promote the cookie cutter music the record companies make.

I'll stop there for now, but I see a silver lining or hope. I'll post that later because this getting too long as it is. Please do read and give feedback.

[Janszoon]

I don't think the mainstream is worse now than decades past. Things that appeal to the broadest possible audience are, by their very nature, on the tame side.

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I don't think the mainstream is worse now than decades past. Things that appeal to the broadest possible audience are, by their very nature, on the tame side.

Here's an article to check out from Smithsonian, a reputable source. There is more online all over the place. Part of getting past a problem is accepting there is a problem

Oh, I can't link because I'm new...but Google this article by Smithsonian

science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse

It's a really good article.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

Here's an article to check out from Smithsonian, a reputable source. There is more online all over the place. Part of getting past a problem is accepting there is a problem

Oh, I can't link because I'm new...but Google this article by Smithsonian

science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse

It's a really good article.

Are you referring to the study that used the Million Song Dataset, which has far more older songs than post 1995 songs due to copyright issues? A less representative dataset for the modern music part of the equation versus a more inclusive set for old music smells like bias. Also, even if it was accurate, less timbral range is not necessarily "worse", it just denotes less timbral range. There weren't any differences in melodic or harmonic diversity that they found either, and all three of those things combined form music, so judging it off of one element reeks of p hacking.

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Are you referring to the study that used the Million Song Dataset, which has far more older songs than post 1995 songs due to copyright issues? A less representative dataset for the modern music part of the equation versus a more inclusive set for old music smells like bias. Also, even if it was accurate, less timbral range is not necessarily "worse", it just denotes less timbral range. There weren't any differences in melodic or harmonic diversity that they found either, and all three of those things combined form music, so judging it off of one element reeks of p hacking.

Well, the Smithsonian article linked to a Scientific America article that goes into greater detail about the methodology of the research. According to the Scientific America article,

1) The database is the Million Song Database but of the Million songs featured only 464,411 are between 1955 - 2010 of which were used for the study.

2) So the study covers the period between 1955 - 2010 and doesn't mention any representative sample issues. The sample size appears sufficient.

If you get past that methodology, the study concludes:

1) Timbre quality (defined by the study not as a laymen's term definition of timbre but as sound color, texture, or tone quality. So, essentially, the musical dynamics of a song) has declined since 1960 which, according to the researchers concludes, less diversity in instrumentation (instruments used if at all) and recording technique (production value)

2) Pitch content (defined as harmony, melody, chord progression choice) has also diminished. The study conclude the same progressions etc...are being used as 1960 but with stricter syntax. This means it's a very rigid application of old structures.

3) Songs are louder (loudness not in volume but in production recording) the study concludes there is much less dynamic range, meaning background parts exist less if it all.

So, in laymen terms: songs are statistically shown to decline in instrumentation, production value, creativity of form, rigidity to a few old progressions or forms, and songs cover up any detail with loudness.

That is me summarizing the study in laymen terms. Others can summarize it differently but go to the Smithsonian and Scientific America article for details.

Again, I think what the study concludes is pretty accurate to my experience of recent music. How many Youtube videos are there about, "the three chords of 100 popular songs," or other videos. As far as what I hear in pop music, there are no instruments but a drum beat and some synthesized bass. The music doesn't have a background part, or a subtle theme or counter-point. So, I don't find the study inaccurate. The only thing novel about it, is that it quantified it.

[Zhanteimi]