What's gone wrong with Popular Music?

[alexis]

The Beatles are a great example.

Sure they'd played live for a while. But they weren't the only rock'n'roll band in Hamburg or Liverpool. And the music they were writing wasn't exactly top-grade - really all that early stuff is Everly Brothers knockoffs. Can't exactly say there's much melodic or lyrical complexity in "She loves you yeah yeah yeah", "I want to hold your hand" or "Love me do".

What got them success was Brian Epstein. He got them a contract, got them work outside Merseyside, got them TV shows, and sorted out how they should look and act for live gigs. And crucially they were all fresh-faced young lads, fairly attractive by the standards of the day.

Then for later albums you can add George Martin throwing every production trick in the box at their music, and some more tricks he invented himself.

So yeah, let's use the Beatles as an example. A perfect example of how a good manager can sell a pretty-boy group with fairly average songs to the teen audience, and how a good producer can turn those fairly average songs into nicely-packaged pop.

Sorry, Mr. Grab, with all respect, I disagree re: your comments on the early Beatles tunes. Even limiting it to the ones you mentioned, they were arguably not average at all, and in any case Mr. Epstein didn't have much if anything to do with the songs themselves, (all IMO!). (Except for "Love Me Do" might be considered average, which only charted at #17 because Brian Epstein is reported to have bought thousands of copies)

She Loves You - besides the dramatic use of the 4th minor, the rhythm changes throughout the song are remarkable.

I Want to Hold Your Hand - complete key modulation to the "IV" (Starting in G, it pivots to C, with the consequent addition of the Dm7/G7 chords), again with quite the rhythm changes.

And after 1000s of hours of live play, they were a VERY tight band, I don't know if it qualifies as "proof", but they were able to record the entire "Please Please Me" album in 19 hours.

Finally, they were pretty good singers, way beyond the Everly Bros by then - obviously, since they were quite adept at three-part harmony!

As far as I can tell, they were musically unaffected by Mr. Epstein. He made John stop wearing toilet seats around his head on stage and things like that, but I think at the time they started making it big (1962-ish) there were no other bands in Liverpool that could in combination sing, perform, and write as well as they could.

PTI (pardon the interruption) please!

[Guest]

In a way, I'd say people who get a great sound today are to be commended because they're more likely to be doing it completely on purpose. I mean, digital recorders (at best) merely capture sound faithfully without adding 'colour'. So, colour should be added with careful choice and positioning of mics, then maybe adding analog processes and effects, valve tech, or tape (as an effect), etc. Sometimes I wonder if/which artists of the 60's might have actually preferred cheesy presets and dodgy pedals/amps to those that were then available.

[steve355]

I spend 95% of my time on my own, in my bedroom studio, f**ing around with a computer rather than 95% playing and singing with other people, inventing lyrics and melodies, and then 5% in a studio with an expert recording it.

[Richie Royale]

It's a fairly simple trick of the brain going on here.
There is no reason for anyone to remember the rubbish that was around a while ago, there was a bunch of it. What would be the point of remembering it be?

Just as you pick and choose what you remember from your past so society does the same thing with music I suppose. There weren't 1000 Sgt. Peppers or Bohemian Rhapsodies, but there were thousands upon thousands of bits of fluff and chart filler. They fall by the wayside and nostaligia takes over. The 'great' songs (Or any other bits of art) were sometimes critically ridiculed in their day, but were publically popular. (I can't think of ANY critics lauding Led Zepplin for instance, but the public purchased their music and went to their shows) (And they were themselves reworking old classics, I think 7 of the 9 songs on their first album were reworked oldies).

This has always and will always be the case.
Many songs and bits of art or film will live on and their lesser brethren will be forgotten.
As will the 'great' songs of the past, and new ones will take their place.
Does anyone regularily listen to music from the early 1900's ? or 20's, 30's or 40's?
Perhaps once every now and again, but not as much as the songs of the era you love or identify with.

That doesn't mean that an 80 or 90 year old hearing those songs won't say 'What happened to music, remember what was around when I was Young'. They were saying that in the 60's when the great songs of that era were born, and they were perfectly right to say it too.
That's what they had the right to think after all.

So subjective. Such a broad topic.
Really nothing can be said to validate any point of view becasue EVERYONE is right about their stance on it. You can try educate people on the history of music and why what is around today is around, becasue of what existed before and influenced the people who create it.
You can do this with art or film or photography or writing or prose.

Beyond that, it's all art and it's all valid... pretty much. (Pretty much)

+1

[Gone To Lunch]

I spend 95% of my time on my own, in my bedroom studio, f**ing around with a computer rather than 95% playing and singing with other people, inventing lyrics and melodies, and then 5% in a studio with an expert recording it.

Thats it !

In the olden days the route to stardom was via hours of instrumental practice in the bedroom, "'til the fingers bled", with/without hairbrush, then clumsy gigs at youth clubs, school dances, then maybe a local pub, college etc (qua Bryan Adams)

In contrast to buying a DAW and worrying why the plug-ins haven't yielded a hit

And as for the Beatles, my analysis of Lewisohn's chronicles reveals they had done 685 gigs by the time of their first Abbey Rd session in June 62, and another 104 between that and the second one in September, by which time Ringo had replaced Pete. And also that they clocked up 1,160 hours of live work in Hamburg, at least according to their contracted hours

[Shambolic Charm]

well put Hollowaxis and very true to a point BUT the young these days are very eclectic and many of them are discovering the music of the sixties and seventies and are bowled over by it. My generation, who hit musical awareness in the 70's would have been looking back at the 30's and 40's for equivalent which we didn't, not at all.

[HollowAxis]

Hmmm. Shambolic, that's true.
That's what I'm used to... Listening to anything and everything.
I listen to lots and lots of music from waaaay before my teenage years.
I'm not a teenager now, but still only 27 so I suppose I count as fairly young?

But I listen to music from any time really.
Almost everyone I know does, but I know lots of people who are 'into' music.
Musicians, audiophiles or just people who like to go to gigs etc

I wonder if kids today, teenagers really, (who the chart sort of pop music is aimed at) tale more of an interest in 'older' music than generations before did?

[Scramble]

I spend 95% of my time on my own, in my bedroom studio, f**ing around with a computer rather than 95% playing and singing with other people, inventing lyrics and melodies, and then 5% in a studio with an expert recording it.

Thats it !

In the olden days the route to stardom was via hours of instrumental practice in the bedroom, "'til the fingers bled",

No, that isn't it. There are far more kids practising in their bedrooms 'til their fingers bleed these days then ever. Not every wannabe is an idiot with a DAW. Anyway, there really weren't that many instrumental wizzes around in those days. Even Bill Bruford says that today's drummers are technically a lot better in general than the drummers in his day.

with/without hairbrush, then clumsy gigs at youth clubs, school dances, then maybe a local pub, college etc (qua Bryan Adams)

Still plenty of that going on.

[zenguitar]

My generation, who hit musical awareness in the 70's would have been looking back at the 30's and 40's for equivalent which we didn't, not at all.

Ahh... you're talking 'bout my generation.

And I'm afraid I have to disagree because my experience once I discovered a love for music was to read interviews with musicians I admired. And when they mentioned influences I would listen to those too. So I was looking back to music of the 30's and 40's (and earlier) at the time. Blues, Jazz, big bands, Hollywood musicals, and plenty more besides.

And thinking back to the 70's... contemporary music wasn't ubiquitous like it is now. There was Top Of The Pops once a week (and half of that was the likes of The Rubettes and other disposable music), Old Grey Whistle Test if you were allowed to stay up that late and a handful of shops that played Radio 1. If you had the luxury of a car radio the parents would listen to Radio 2. There was an occasional youth club or scouts disco, but the main entertainment came in the form of a dance in the village hall. A proper dance where they would announce a song for the youngsters, our mums would leap to their feet, and the band would grudgingly stumble into The March of the Mods. Regular RKO pictures Musicals were on TV, especially BBC2 on Sunday afternoons and Saturday Night TV was The Black and White Minstrels, and The Good Old Days.

Yep, in the 70's we were surrounded by the music of the 30's and 40's. We listened to it all the time whether we liked it or not, and it influenced then and still does now.

Andy

[Scramble]

You only have to watch the current 1976/77 repeats of Top of the Pops to see what rubbish there used to be around in those days. 90% of it is cringeworthy.

[Paggos]

I think it's the downside of living in times of plenty.

We all have an evermore impressive array of technology at our disposal, so much so that a dis-proportionate amount of time is spent getting 'that sound' rather than as you say, learning your trade. Look at the Beatles' harmony and it can be quite complex. I make the analogy with buildings. Look at one built long time in the past, the detail is much more intricate, they were built by artisans, now we just throw up breeze blocked lumps, which yes can be eye-catching, but the visual impact is novel but not impressive.

Now consider music made on a computer, it too uses blocks, it becomes quite formulaic, a song can be knocked together in no time at all, by getting a beat going, then knocking a few chords together, copy and paste it etc but it is equally forgettable.

I was out the other night with a mate who was saying that today's music is equally memorable as say the Beatles, I then asked him to sing/whistle back any of the tunes we had just heard in the club, and he couldn't remember a single one, then I said now do the same with a Beatles song, and of course he could mention loads of them.

To write, I have started getting the guitar out again, where different chording and phrasing can be experimented with, more complex arrangements to give the tune variety and what I hope is, a little more piquancy, everything is focussed on music making instead of 'sound design'

That is not to say that a 2 chord trick cannot be impressive, as a piece of music, it might be a track written specifically for the dance market, the songs that seemlessly blend into each other. But it is quite refreshing and much more impressive to watch/listen to someone who has mastery of their craft and plays a tune that takes you somewhere, with both lyrical, melodic and harmonic integrity rather than just trotting out another 134bpm mono-chorder where the only dynamics are the breakdown.

Will there ever be another Beatles, Floyd, Gershwin, Porter, Stevie Wonder, Jagger/Richard, Holland/Dozier, Dylan?

Beautifully put, i too have actually been depressed due to my lack of expression, but i learned that even playing the piano or whatever 'bad' then editing the midi is better than just jotting down 'blocks' and the more interaction, the more of a satisfaction it is. It's so easy to forget the music, and dive right into the sound design...but once you get both of those going, thats when you can truely feel the music, live the music, and express it deep within your heart. Listening to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVeMNG7dZc&feature=related (Ow! - Dizzy Gillespie/James Moody/Gene Harris/Ray Brown/Grady Tate) actually makes me tear up because it's just so beautiful..

[Folderol]

I was out the other night with a mate who was saying that today's music is equally memorable as say the Beatles, I then asked him to sing/whistle back any of the tunes we had just heard in the club, and he couldn't remember a single one, then I said now do the same with a Beatles song, and of course he could mention loads of them.

This.

More than anything else, all the older Beatles songs (and almost all of Paul McCartneys later ones) are highly memorable and, above all, easy to sing (no matter how badly). A lot of the 'look at me' prima donas just want to look flash and sound clever. Well maybe they do, but if the punters can't connect with the music and 'own' it they won't go for it.

[grab]

Will there ever be another Beatles, Floyd, Gershwin, Porter, Stevie Wonder, Jagger/Richard, Holland/Dozier, Dylan?

After Gershwin and Porter, you had Rogers and Hammerstein, Bernstein, and Lerner and Loewe; then Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice and Sondheim; then today maybe Howard Goodall?

Jagger/Richard? Led Zep punched their ticket in the 70s. Today, Jack White's yer man.

Dylan - god, there's *so* many good singer-songwriters out there, you're spoiled for choice.

Holland/Dozier - well they only wrote the songs. So Randy Newman, or more recently Guy Chambers, or various other folks who don't get much publicity.

Beatles? Take your pick from (in approximate date order) Queen, Peter Gabriel (with and without Genesis), Stone Roses, Radiohead, Blur, Oasis, Muse, or the Scissor Sisters. (Limiting myself to British Isles bands there, with the obvious exception of the Scissor Sisters who are great. Could easily have included REM, RHCP or a whole bunch of US pop/rock acts, but that would have been looking for another Beach Boys, right...?)

Floyd are perhaps the only ones without any modern equivalent. There are still good prog-rock bands out there, but no-one's ever going to hire Abbey Road for a year to do another Dark Side of the Moon again, which kind of limits the possibilities.

[Richie Royale]

I was out the other night with a mate who was saying that today's music is equally memorable as say the Beatles, I then asked him to sing/whistle back any of the tunes we had just heard in the club, and he couldn't remember a single one, then I said now do the same with a Beatles song, and of course he could mention loads of them.

This.

More than anything else, all the older Beatles songs (and almost all of Paul McCartneys later ones) are highly memorable and, above all, easy to sing (no matter how badly). A lot of the 'look at me' prima donas just want to look flash and sound clever. Well maybe they do, but if the punters can't connect with the music and 'own' it they won't go for it.

It's not a fair comparison though. Tracks that are 40 years old, which have been heard consciously or sub-consciously are more likely to be easily recalled. I've never heard the whole song, but I know the "Poker Face" melody by Lady Gaga, whether I want to or not. Does that make it a modern classic, or a catchy melody? Does it make it as good as the Beatles because I can recall it?

I don't think it matters. People will have their "back in the day" music which will be special to them and they will seemingly consider the newer generation as bland or not as good. It doesn't matter, enjoy your music and seek out something alternative if you don't like what is in the charts.

[The_BPP]

I spend 95% of my time on my own, in my bedroom studio, f**ing around with a computer rather than 95% playing and singing with other people, inventing lyrics and melodies, and then 5% in a studio with an expert recording it.

+1

Tools of songwriters from the 60's: A Guitar or piano, pen and paper and their creativity. Possibly a tape machine, if lucky.

Tools of contemporary songwriters: A Guitar or keyboard, a computer, a DAW, softsynths, VSTs and creative minds watered down with Facebook, Twitter, various websites, smartphones, 900 TV channels with precisely bugger-all on, texting, Xbox and various other distractions.

Mind you, nostalgia's not what it used to be.

[MadManDan]

I spend 95% of my time on my own, in my bedroom studio, f**ing around with a computer rather than 95% playing and singing with other people, inventing lyrics and melodies, and then 5% in a studio with an expert recording it.

ok but that's you. Other than the paying a studio/engineer part it is all sweat equity. The computer didn't make you stay home alone neglecting your playing/writing skills did it?

[Hamund]

What's gone wrong with Popular Music? It'sa leading question. Who sas there is anything wrong with it? 'Cept for little or no money of course. Pop was always crap occasionaly rising to higher summits. But in the main - pop is a lost commodity. Slipped through the fingers of stupid hands.
New stars, and lots of em, and the biz is back.

[Richard Graham]

Will there ever be another Beatles, Floyd, Gershwin, Porter, Stevie Wonder, Jagger/Richard, Holland/Dozier, Dylan?

After Gershwin and Porter, you had Rogers and Hammerstein, Bernstein, and Lerner and Loewe; then Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice and Sondheim; then today maybe Howard Goodall?

Jagger/Richard? Led Zep punched their ticket in the 70s. Today, Jack White's yer man.

Dylan - god, there's *so* many good singer-songwriters out there, you're spoiled for choice.

Holland/Dozier - well they only wrote the songs. So Randy Newman, or more recently Guy Chambers, or various other folks who don't get much publicity.

Beatles? Take your pick from (in approximate date order) Queen, Peter Gabriel (with and without Genesis), Stone Roses, Radiohead, Blur, Oasis, Muse, or the Scissor Sisters. (Limiting myself to British Isles bands there, with the obvious exception of the Scissor Sisters who are great. Could easily have included REM, RHCP or a whole bunch of US pop/rock acts, but that would have been looking for another Beach Boys, right...?)

Floyd are perhaps the only ones without any modern equivalent. There are still good prog-rock bands out there, but no-one's ever going to hire Abbey Road for a year to do another Dark Side of the Moon again, which kind of limits the possibilities.

Must take issue with some of this... Zep never "punched Jagger and Richards ticket", the Stones' late 60s/early 70s music is their best (Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, Let it Bleed), and is some of the best dirty blues country rock n roll ever. No disrespect to Zep but they were in a different game altogether. As for Jack White, well the White Stripes are not bad, but better than the Stones in their pomp? No way!

Also, The Beatles... I really like a lot of those bands on your list, and collectively they might lord it over The Beatles, but I dont think a single individual one of those bands has ever matched The Beatles for innovation, musicality and sheer brilliance. Sorry to be an old fart. I would pick Revolver over Parklife every time (and I do love Parklife).

A lot of this is down to taste, for sure. I don't think "music was better then" but I do think times have changed and we aint gonna see the like of those classic bands, again. Not to say that todays music is bad. As someone else on this thread remarked, time is a great filter.