Popular music, a trend towards dumb?

Is it just me, or is the notion of ‘Popular song’ stuck on a trend towards ever-decreasing skill and talent?

Here’s the progression as I see it, simplified.

Cole Porter was a great songwriter. When he produced a song, he delivered an original idea or thematic notion (e.g. the singer catalogues things which others may get a ‘kick’ out of, but which to him seem boring compared to the joy of seeing his lover again); an elegant piano score (approaching the richness of a classical composer’s work); a melody, a harmonic structure and an arrangement; and lyrics that had wit, plus an underlying and appropriate structure in terms of rhyme and scansion.

Early ‘rock’n’roll’. Simpler ideas, condensed into airplay-friendly choruses or ‘hooks’. Simpler music and arrangements, chiefly based around guitar blues progressions. Simpler, more direct and repetitive lyrics, but still with an underlying structure of sorts.

Punk. Basic ‘idea’ for a song at best. Reduction of melody and arrangement to extremely simplified chords, and a certain ‘pride’ in not bothering to play them in tune or well. Lyrics - attitude more important than anything else. Any elements of rhyme or scansion an atypical bonus. Some wit and flair in the execution.

Rap. Forget melody altogether - just talk over the beat. Forget ‘music’, instrumental harmony, chord prgoression, modulation etc. Just get a market-friendly beat out of a drum machine and you’re done.

Rap + sampling. Now you don’t even have to worry about inventing any music, not even programming the drum machine to get the sunds yu want. Just hear something else you like, such as a great track by Stevie Wonder, showcasing his gift for melody and harmony, and sample that. Then talk over it.

The rise of the DJ cult. Can’t even do the talking-rhythmically bit, so sample a vocal hook as well. Then play with studio machines to produce the afore-mentioned market-friendly beat. Yes, some skill in operating this machnery and producing a commercially successful sound. But a far cry from ‘musicianship’.

I hope this thread gives rise to some enlightening discussion. I am not just slagging off types of music I happen to dislike, and that’s not what this thread is about. If you want to vent spleen, please do so at the Pit provided.

My question is this. Given that we can’t blame the music industry - which simply produces whatever product we will buy - are we collectively, and in general, intent on becoming less discriminating, less appreciative of talent, and increasingly lazy in our acceptance of what each preceding generation would have dismissed as mediocre?

And what is the future: one person talking atonally over a single repetitive bass drum?

I’d have to disagree, if you look at the typical pop music of past decades (and not just the stuff that was good enough to still be well known today) you’ll see it’s just as bad and just as stupid as modern pop music, if not worse. Your typical modern pop song has far better production and probably better musicianship than one from the 60s or 50s. The range of lyrics in pop music is a lot wider now, even pop acts like Britney Spears sing songs about obsession and the darker elements of love, and other topics that would never be touched by a pop musician in the past.

I’m going to try to back this up with a few “facts” in order to keep this question on the burner for awhile–it is an interesting one.

I think that there is no question that at one time, some “popular” music was also highly sophisticated. In particular, I cite the works of Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn, which in many cases are extremely complex, but which were also mainstream successes.

However, at the same time that Ellington was enjoying success, there was also a lot of complete crap out there–and people were listening to that, too. The trend seems to have always been there, before and since. When music theory was stood on its ear by the advent of bebop and rock 'n roll in the mid-'50’s (either of which may or may not be “sophisticated”), chumps were eating up “How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?” Lorne Greene was making a mint off of “Ringo,” which is really not much more than a recited story over a rhythm section, not unlike rap, only not rhyming so well.

I happen to think that some of the techno and DJ stuff out there is pretty dang interesting. Many techno tunes appear to pay some sort of homage to all sorts of other music, and some of it may not be able to be produced with human hands playing traditional instruments. Sure, it’s referential and maybe not “original,” but what’s so bad about that? After all, Ellington’s “Caravan” was a heist of Tchaikovsky–whom I’ve heard some folks disparage as a “pop” composer of dubious talent himself. I suppose it’s always been like this.

I personally like almost all types of music, but I can see where you’re coming from.

However, I do have to say that I think you are wrong.

See, music isn’t supposed to be complex, or lyrical, or insturmentally diverse to be good… I get the same thrill out of a Pow-Wow Circle Dance (drums and rhythmic chant) that I get out of Beethoven’s 5th or Metallica’s No-Leaf Clover… I think that music changes and diversifies as we go along, but some things remain the same.

I think that the skill to mix correctly as a DJ, and the skills to blend an Orchestration Piece are the same… application may be different, but it’s still a high skill level.

Just my two cents. I also see this one headed towards IMHO…

I work at an “Oldies” station. The playlist is approx. 850 songs. That’s about normal.
We’re playing the 850 tunes the listeners want to remember.
There are more than 20,000 other songs from that period we wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole.
Listeners like to associate themselves with the “good stuff.” You know, the songs that have withstood time.
Most Big Band listeners who point proudly at “In The Mood” would run screaming if they heard “Three Little Fishies.”

ianzin, buddy…listen to me. The whole point of techno/DJ music is to get people to dance. It is dance music. Okay? Of course it’s repetitive, loud, pulse-pounding, and nonmelodic…that’s the whole freaking point. You’re supposed to bust a move, make a jam, shake it down, whatever, and not care too much about the lyrics not making a whole lot of sense. If you want gorgeous instrumental music and deeply meaningful lyrics, the New Age section is right over there.

Just for the record, I’ve never understood the rap against practically any kind of music. I never thought disco sucked or died (although I have to admit rave sounds a lot cooler), I find most rap just plain boring, and if millions of fans are willing to listen to some naked-midriffed teenybopper belt out some vaguely erotic or whatever tune about a past relationship, hey, it’s their money.

Okay, I don’t like some of the songs in Hip Hop Mania 2, but that’s about it.

  1. You compare a named songwriter (Cole Porter) with music styles and genres. That isn’t comparing like with like.

  2. You omit a large number of music genres (eg psychedelic rock, heavy metal, New Romantic, post-punk, shoegazing, industrial, Britpop). I suspect that this may be because you cannot attack those genres as severely as you have attacked studio made electronic dance music and hip hop.

  3. Some bands today do have talent and are appreciated. However, not all of todays bands are talented. As other posters have pointed out, it wasn’t wall-to-wall lyrical genius in Cole Porter’s day either. If it were, perhaps you’d have given many more examples of great songwriters from the ‘golden days,’ or have allowed ‘Songwriters of the 1930s’ to be collectively compared to rap or punk.

One great thing from yesteryear versus many not-so-good (in your opinion) things from today simply isn’t a fair comparison.

I strongly disagree. How can you say that production and musicianship is better today then in the 50’s or 60’s. How can you forget the production and arrangements of Phil Spector’s or Brian Wilson’s records. I for one think that it takes much more skill to produce records that sound as good as a lot of 60’s recordings did with the limited technology they had. You have to remember that most were recorded on 2 or 4-track and sound amazing. I guess a lot of people are used to the crisp digital records of today which in my opinion sound a bit too perfect.

The same could be said for musicianship. Listen to the records of Elvis, Gene Vincent, Johnny Burnett among others and you will hear some of the hottest guitar playing ever recorded. (If I can jump over to country music, anything with Speedy West and Jimmy Bryant will blow your mind.)

The comment about lyrics:
Have you ever listened to the Shangri-La’s. They had a song about rape and many about dying, and besides you can’t judge lyrics by how racey they are.

As far as the OP goes, I sort of agree. One thing that I’ve been thinking about is the musical climate of the last turn of the century compared to the present. Ragtime was popular, jazz was just around the corner, not to mention blues (but of course if you listen to a lot of the pop music from that time you will notice a lot of it sucks). Even classical music was more inventive. Composers were experimenting with atonal, poly tonal, poly rhythmic, and minimalist music. It seems that there is no where to go, except maybe using computers to compose music using quarter tones. I’m not saying I don’t like anything new. Some of my all time faves are modern, Rufus Wainright, Ben Folds, and Ron Sexsmith. But I don’t like modern pop and rock music for the most part. I would rather not listen to anything at all then listen to techno, angry frat boy rock, rap, etc.

Off to IMHO.

There’s experimental music out now. It isn’t all wildly popular, but neither was the more experimental music of the beginning of last century. The Rite of Spring met with some harsh criticism at its first performance.

I do agree with jonas that Phil Spector and Brian Wilson were great record producers. I also think that there are some very good record producers around today (Flood, Steve Albini, the Hartnoll brothers, the Aphex Twin) - but that’s my opinion (and we’re headed for IMHO, pretty soon, because there’s really not much of a General Question here).

I also agree that good music often comes from a charged creative atmosphere, as jonas describes the musical atmosphere of the early part of last century. I would argue that charged creative atmospheres producing great mainstream works are rare. More often than not, the mainstream of popular music is cack.

So, before we do move to IMHO, here’s an answer of the original general question, which was:

No. Of course there is no intent to become less discriminating.

and the second part:

Probably already been done. The thing is that techno and other dance music are the descendants of electronic music and of repetitive dance music (which has been around for a long time). They aren’t the descendants of Cole Porter, so there is no ‘progression’ as you claimed the OP. There are still songwriters around today - some good, some bad, just like in the old days. Maybe we’re due a popular genius. Who knows?

Whoo, we’re in IMHO already in the time from preview to submit!

I somewhat agree. With the rise in quality of the home studio (Pro Tools), you now no longer need to be any sort of musician to make a CD. You don’t need the ability to sing, play an instrument or even write a song - the computer will do most of it for you. They have CD samples with drum loops and just about any other instrument you can think of. All you have to do is pick a drum beat out that you like (that someone else recorded), lay it down, and throw some other instruments on top. Basically, all the work has been done for you - all you’re doing is putting it in a different order. If you want to sing but you can’t - no problem. They even have programs now that will fix and actually tune your voice to the proper key.

Technology has squeezed all the humanity out of music. Creating musical works of art used to be a beautiful process. Songs and albums that took blood, sweat and tears to write, produce and record can now be done at home and cranked out a CD in a few hours. The real trick, though, is playing live. You still need real musicians for that. Well, actually, you don’t. Just hook up a couple of DAT players or, if you’re so inclined, you can bring a laptop and just hit “play” while you get a bunch of dancers to jump around and distract you to the fact that your just listening to a recording.

But all of this, of course, is coming from a totally biased point of view. That was the musician in me talking. Now, speaking as a fan of music, I’m of the opinion that if it makes you happy when you listen to it, then it’s good. It doesn’t matter what type of music it is, or how it was recorded or any of that. I’m no fan of Brittney Spears or the Backstreet Boys, but if a song or artist moves you physically or spiritually, then that’s all that matters. A good song is a good song. That’s what music is all about.

The problem seems to be that commercial radio plays what will make them money. Most listeners aren’t listening to be challeged lyrically, musically or whatever. They are listening to be entertained. It’s not that the music isn’t out there - it’s just that many artists get the following replies from labels:

  1. S/he’s too much like XXX (big name star)
  2. S/he’s not enough like XXX.
  3. S/he’s not pretty enough/skinny enough/rugged enough/whatever enough.
  4. I don’t get your music (Well, moron, maybe you don’t but others might!).
  5. Your music is too different.

and as such, don’t get the money behind them to get their stuff published etc.

As B_P mentioned, home recording equipment has opened up the door to a lot of really untalented people out there, but I think it has also made making a CD of your own much easier for a talented musician who doesn’t have the funds for studio time, paying extra musicians, paying an engineer, pressing a CD, etc, etc. Want to make a CD? Meet about 10 people with their palms outstretched.