Actually, popular music is arguably “better” today. But in the Sixties it was more creative — or at least more experimental. So says science. (Via Kevin Drum.)
The science under consideration was carried out by a group of Spanish scientists led by Joan Serrà, and appeared in Scientific Reports, an open-access journal published by Nature. They looked at something called the Million Song Dataset, which is pretty amazing in its own right. The MSD collects data from over a million songs recorded since 1955, including tempo and volume and some information about the pitches of the actual notes (seems unclear to me exactly how detailed this data is).
And the answer is … popular music is in many ways unchanged over the years. The basic frequencies of different notes and so forth haven’t changed that much. But in certain crucial ways they have: in particular, they’ve become more homogeneous. This chart shows “timbral variety” over the years — a way of measuring how diverse the different kinds of sounds appearing in songs are. Nobody should really be surprised that the late 1960’s was the peak of different kinds of instrumentation being used in pop music. On the other hand, one could I suppose argue that this is because back then we didn’t know how to do it right, and there was a lot of experimental crap, whereas we’ve now figured it out. I suppose.
On the other hand, songs have gotten louder! So you get more volume for your money.
I’m sure plenty of people have already pointed this out in other venues, but this choice of metrics is appropriate for certain styles of music and wildly inappropriate for others. In particular, the biggest innovation in Western popular music in the last 30 years—hip hop—is going to be severely undervalued (at least in terms of variety) by this system. I’d be interested to see what a similar set of plots looked like for rhythm and lyrical content.
On your last point, this might be of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
No.
We’ve now figured out the “formula” to cater to the lowest common denominator, in order to make the most money.
This does not make for better music – it makes for, as noted, homogenized music that all sounds the same.
Variety and experimentation are good.
Not only was there a greater variety of music in the mid ’60s to late ’70s, there was a greater variety of better, more interesting music.
If, in the ’60s, there was a rainbow of flavors of ice-cream to choose from, but now one had to search high and low to find anything besides vanilla, because it’s easier and cheaper to produce, would that mean that vanilla is a better flavor than any of those choices in the ’60s?
No.
Worthless generalizations. There are plenty of artists out there making some awesome stuff. This proves nothing, because you can’t judge the quality of music based on the “timbral variety” — that’s a nonsense way to judge.
You need to lighten up, man 🙂
this is dumb. there is a ton of experimental music out there. you just need look a little harder.
Two responses to people who bemoan the loss of all that great 60’s music:
(1) If you can’t find anything experimental from today’s music, you’re simply not looking. It’s easy to find.
(2) I’ve listened to a lot of 60’s music, and anyone who believes that era didn’t exhibit the same cynical tendencies to “cater to the lowest common denominator” has a selective memory. I’ve listened to The Archies, Herman’s Hermits, The Monkees, and a whole slew of other artists who were blatant attempts to co-opt the popularity of other artists (or in the case of The Archies, comic book characters). The only thing new about today’s manufactured pop sensations is that we now have the technology to “fix” the inability to sing on key.
Pingback: Pop Music Video Site » Blog Archive » Music Was Better in the Sixties, Man – Discover Magazine (blog)
Pingback: Pop Video Now » Blog Archive » Music Was Better in the Sixties, Man – Discover Magazine (blog)
Davis said: “The only thing new about today’s manufactured pop sensations is that we now have the technology to “fix” the inability to sing on key.”
I think that’s not quite true. With all the pressure on the music industry a lot has changed. Big-time pop stars today have three or four composers put together their hits. Every hit artist is carefully groomed to maximize revenue and earning potential. Because there are competing distribution arenas, record labels are trying to make each hit count as much as they, whereas back in the 60s there was a great emphasis on exploration and less on commercialization
@Samantha #9: The singer-songwriter was a late ’60s innovation. It used to be somewhat rare. Elvis didn’t write “Blue Suede Shoes”, which was close to his signature song. Same with Aretha Franklin’s signature songs, “r e s p e c t” and “(You make me feel like a ) natural woman” which were written by Otis Redding and Carole King. Kris Kristoffersen wrote “Me and Bobby McGee” There are large numbers of other examples
One major difference was that there was a time where record studios were run by people like Ahmet Ergodan and Sam Phillips, who actually cared about music. Now, the major studios are owned by huge media conglomerates like Sony and Time-Warner. Great, innovative musicians are totally still out there, they are just recording with independent labels who will work with them, and not try and push whatever stupid, superficial commericial thing is happening now. You just have to look beyond what is on your radio. And even there, if you’re willing to listen, there is plenty of talent out there. Really listen to Amy Winehouse or Joss Stone and tell me that they couldn’t have held their own against Motown back in the ’60s.
Dumb and uninformed conclusions. What has changed, thankfully, is the dominant form of composition being based on rhythm, both in the instrumentation of the music and the melody / (or non-melody) of the singers voice. In the 60’s , we were coming off the heals of very complicated classical movements being the preferred and authoratative form of composition in pop culture. Now we have the past 50 years of musical history where the rhythmic compositions of Jazz, blues, rock etc. have evolved and shaped what music is today, based on rhythm not melodic movement. I personally am glad that I don’t have to hear a gigantic wall of complicated impossible to predict trebly harsh ear fluff which was incorrectly recorded by audio engineers who had no clue how to capture and manipulate audio frequencies and mix them together to create something that doesn’t give you high frequency hearing loss like the old days. (Now you get low frequency hearing loss).
>> popular music is arguably “better” today
Justin Bieber is definitely better than The Beatles, no doubt about that.
“You need to lighten up, man”
Actually, everybody needs to lighten up here. Sean and his co-bloggers will throw in something like this from time to time, which is great – too much Higgs or other electrons can be unhealthy.
Interesting question is “is there any kind of metric that can give some kind of objective grading of music through the years?”
I remember that David Bowe and Elvis Costello sounded “dissonant” to me and thus unpleasant. Yet they were big stars so to a lot of people they sounded just right. Was something physical going on that can be used as a metric we looking for?
Pingback: The Adventure of Links (July 29, 2012) | A Quantum Of Knowledge
CRAP! I went to go get this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YRrCgkcSNw and lost what I typed like a doofus….anyway, here it is again…
A lot of things have changed over the years. It used to be popular to be the loner. Now the exact opposite is true. Sean’s right though, there wasn’t any sort of understanding of compression, frequency equalization, or phase orientation back in the day; no understanding of how humans perceived audio. We also know exactly what sells these days. When I got out of college in 2008, I went to work for this music studio in Atlanta and worked for a company that produced: Usher, Katy Perry, Kesha, Lady Gaga, Flo Rida, Justin Bieber and a bunch of other pop music that I’m really into; in fact, I hate it. I started out working for them as an audio engineer, but started writing music for them after we smoked a dubbie one night, got a little drunk, and I started playing songs while narrating my eventful life. As I would write these songs that were more like the one I pasted above, I would cut them up into 5-9 sections that would then be used as 5-9 pop songs because it was about making money by selling songs based on volume. I actually worked out this formula based on Shannon’s inequality to help guide the company. The reason for cutting them up was because the masses like certain elements: a tempo of 120 beats per minute, sticking to the keys of C,A,G,E, and D, major and pentatonic scales; I called it the AC/DC effect…the same freaking song for 40 years with slight variations, but because it was familiar, it was like a conditioned response. People generally don’t like music that’s too complex for them to understand. If I had to guess at a percentage of the western world’s population that actually understood music, I would guess %5. Anyone who thinks that only following a trend or only listening to experimental music is what’s good, has no understanding of music. I’m pretty freaking proud of Tik-Tok because I mocked the hell out of club-going trendy girls while playing a tune based on the NES Double Dragon meets Mike Tyson Punch Out video game theme timbres. Everyone else rightly hates it 😀 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjyuBRvdZ20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPgQl4DJ_uc
The quality of audio (music) is better today because the audio is clearer and not crammed into a mono track being reproduced from grooves in vinyl. The process of recording is better and the playback methods are better. When I was at the Audio Engineering Society Convention in San Francisco in 2006 I sat through a presentation for a new synth built by a NASA scientist…who was giving the presentation. But go back and listen to Jimmy Page play guitar for Led Zeppelin; it’s the crappiest, out of tune, off beat, butterfingers guitar I’ve ever heard. And I might add, the Beatles were the N’ Sync, New Kids on the Block, of the early 60s.
There is plenty of experimental stuff out there right now, but the fact remains, we still use a lot of the same instruments, the same synths and synth patches, and people still don’t want to dive any deeper into an understanding of perception as it relates to music. I’m sure half of the people who read this stopped at “katy perry” above. How many “experimental artists” in western music actually change the tempo through the song? How many try doing a song in D minor? Tempo, key, scales, chords, harmonies, and timbre; have been bottle necking into a very particular type of music because that’s what our anatomy wants to hear. 120 beats per minute should sound familiar.
“How many try doing a song in D minor?”
Aaahhh yes, the saddest of all keys!
It is not ‘dumb’ as most people said. Music has evolved as did we in this 50years. The 60’s music is still not dead though people now tend to choose a simpler orchestation.
This is an argument not even worth having. Strong opinions from Brett. Were The Beatles the N’ Sync of the early sixties? No. I would rather dance about architecture:) There’s great music from every era if you are willing to look for it. What’s great for you is completely subjective:
Pingback: 1960s music was original, modern music all sounds the same – the scientific proof « UNBELIEVABLE!
There is a point made that there is a lot of experimental mucic out there – you just have to look for it.
I think that is the real point. There is alternative and eclectic music but it isn’t mainstream nor pop as rock was in it’s day, (published on all the popular air waves.)
There is awesome alternative sights but you really have to look for them and that eliminates them from the majority of listeners, also eliminating the majority from the experience.
Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_in_music
Now look at the equivalent list for 20XX forty years from now. See anything anyone still remembers?
Didn’t think so.
Hey! All the good tunes have already been taken!
A certain age bracket always focuses on music more than those older or younger as a symbol of their culture through which they try to make whatever statements there are that they want to make. But from generation to generation, those statements never change. Every generation wants to make the same statement: “We’re different, and we’re better”. It is simultaneously always true and utterly meaningless.
Commercial, formulaic music was quite as common in the 60’s as it is now. We suffered through several years of bubble gum back then, just as we had to find a way to survive through disco and much of the hip-hop and rap since then. Top 40 still controls the market, and any innovative music that penetrates that list has been forcibly shoved down the unwilling throats of the corporate labels by listeners.
I mostly listen to my local university’s student and public stations today, and a lot of what I hear is no less diverse than it was when I was in school. But that regards only the variety of styles presented. On occasion, I’ll flip over to the golden oldies station and it immediately becomes apparent: Everything that we hear now was invented long ago. The experimentation we hear today is only in details.
There is little difference between hip-hop and rock-and-roll when the scale is broadened to include every international variety of music. In western culture, we have settled on a certain relatively narrow band of rhythms and chord structures and melodies that we find particularly pleasing, and that band has certainly narrowed since the sixties. But that doesn’t mean that artists today are less creative. Their quest for the perfect song is no less intense as it was when The Beatles’ “Rubber Soul” blew my mind.
Still, whether some “new” music is a revelation to its generation the way Rubber Soul was to me is strictly a relative judgement. It’s a matter of perspective. I don’t hear much today that I haven’t heard before, but it’s all new to my kids.
I’m not going to spoil it for them — and I’ll let them decide whether or not they want to argue with their kids about it.
I personally think that the only thing which has really changed is the ability for people to sit down and actually listen to music. The ability to be patient and listen to a song in it’s entirety as you would read an entire book (or at least a few chapters) before coming to a conclusion. People don’t analyze the music they listen to anymore. And this isn’t some old geezer getting grumpy, I’ve seen the change happen in the past 10 years and I’m 28. Attention spans get shorter and shorter, so music has to grab its’ audience quicker.
Shouldn’t the graph go up to 11?