The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Scientific proof it's gone to crap
Old 29th July 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Scientific proof it's gone to crap

So after a large data mining effort, we now have scientific proof current music is crap:

http://reut.rs/M9PxOT

Nice to see it's not just old fogey-ism.
Old 29th July 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
nebelfrau's Avatar
 

k
Old 29th July 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Acid Mitch's Avatar
 

Here's some scientific proof your 2 days late to the party:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/all-a...at-itself.html
Old 30th July 2012
  #4
dgc
Gear Head
 

How exactly was this data compiled?
Old 30th July 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
skira's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgc View Post
How exactly was this data compiled?
464,411 recordings from all genres of popular music from the period of 1955-2010 were run through a complex set of algorithms to analyze three metrics: harmonic complexity, timbral diversity, and loudness. The results indicated that, on the whole, popular music over the past half-century has become blander and louder than it used to be.

Good overview at SLATE, which suggests that subtleties of modern music were ignored in the comparison: Pop music is getting louder and dumber, says one study: Here’s what they miss.

Original Article: Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group

Original Article PDF: http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/1207.../srep00521.pdf
Old 30th July 2012
  #6
old school pop was the BEST of all kinds of genres. (and therefore popular)
but now FORMULATED "POP MUSIC" for the masses, and those that are A&R for the big labels see no reason to change it. they made it a "genre" of music, with it's own characteristics.
It does NOT mean the general public would not like good music, it means that (potentially) "good music" of different genres doesn't have a chance of wider exposure in the "pop" genre.
This started in the late eightties/early nineties. Before that (fifties, sixties, seventies) it was label bosses that didn't care what kind of music it was, as long as it SOLD COPIES. But then A&R guys got to decide what's good or not. Modern "pop music" is the result.
(regardless if you like it or not)

FYI: Reuters Thompson is a CORPORATION. They have editorial meetings, where is decided what is news and what is not. Just like any big media corporation.
ALWAYS take that into account when filtering messages.
1
Share
Old 30th July 2012
  #7
Gear Nut
 
rockstarforlife's Avatar
 

Music hasn't gone to crap all that proves is that we humans found the best way to write pop songs and where doing it over n over till we evolve . Idk I'm faded ..

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com
Old 30th July 2012
  #8
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
Before that (fifties, sixties, seventies) it was label bosses that didn't care what kind of music it was, as long as it SOLD COPIES. But then A&R guys got to decide what's good or not. Modern "pop music" is the result.
(regardless if you like it or not)
Which is why I advocate chance discovery of music, avoiding corporate radio, and visiting the local library to pick up cds by artists I have never heard before.

That, and researching the histories (even just a little) of musical genres.

The downside, though, is for all the music that I tell others about that I absolutely love, many can't get behind it because it is as foreign to them as the current top 40 is to me.
Old 30th July 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Teknobeam's Avatar
 

nonsense.....If there is one thing that transcends time it's pop music....it's kind of a dicotomy....casues a lot of pain for some....pleases some others.
Old 30th July 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Ya and they said the same type of thing in the 50's when Elvis came along. Pop music goes on spawning new styles of itself. Usually the older generation calls it crap and the younger generation likes it. Welcome to growing old folks.
Old 30th July 2012
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
Ya and they said the same type of thing in the 50's when Elvis came along. Pop music goes on spawning new styles of itself. Usually the older generation calls it crap and the younger generation likes it. Welcome to growing old folks.
I get your point but disagree: no, something DID change since Elvis' days in the structure of pop music business.
that doesn't negate that Elvis wouldn't be "pop" back then, I think it was.

Last edited by Reptil; 30th July 2012 at 01:28 PM.. Reason: spelling
Old 30th July 2012
  #12
Eat
Lives for gear
 

more baloney. you have over 50 years since rock took hold and kids will be into grandpa's bands as much as grandpa will be into his grand kids music.

the thing that has changed though is that, aside from the bands that just recycle old styles, you have outgrowths of other kinds of... ah.. 'music' *cough*, whose sole existence comes from the fact that since pretty much every type of good music has already been created, the only place left to go is the intentional creation of utter head pounding headache inducing garbage
Old 30th July 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
You could roughly sort music in two kinds: one kind calculated for social control and ... the other kind. The first kind has to rely on mechanical, unconscious triggers and therefore will show less "artistic merit". Some people won't get the fact that this kind of control even exists, because neither the media nor their schools told them anything about it. On the surface this music will be 'crap', but underneath it's just doing it's job.
Old 30th July 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

reptil gets is right, and some are oblivious. hilarious.

pop music is much simpler than the music that was popular years ago.
the loudness thing is stupid, we all can see and hear that. no study required.
Old 30th July 2012
  #15
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
I agree with frans but with some additions. The media often acts as a negative feedback mechanism which attempts to correct understanding in the social organism. The media takes over the role of the people as the point of feedback. but if you have any high gain system where the feedback takes over the input and dominates the circuit, everything you know about the system will be coming from the media.

the public is currently having a good time in the driving seat and is producing a lot of content and along with this it berates established media. That gives the youth culture the illusion it usually demands of rebelliousness and cool. rebels are more often than not 'authoritarians in waiting'. reactionary rebels without causes in most cases. often they really are just rebelling against the lack of boundaries at the same time as trying to cement their identity. they will usually end up aping structures of authority.

Tech marketing geeks and marketing psychologists understand that all too well.

random idiocy is a kind of adolescent play and the internet and media programming is currently swamped with it. don't get me wrong, I think random idiocy is perfectly normal in the context of discovery and development. problem is though, on the internet your most popular moments are likely to be your most idiotic and your development from adolescence to adulthood will very possibly be nipped in the bud by the existence of a permanent record on the web.

This of course is perfect for marketing psychologists because keeping people permanently adolescent is and absolute boon.

The connection between technology, marketing, fake anti authoritarian attitudes and creativity is now a very tight circle indeed. These are basically the artistic elements established media marketers will get behind.

as the medium fragments identity, the established media can't deal with the variety and neither can the public. so they work unconsciously together towards the goal of homogenization.

that's roughly how I see it anyhow.
1
Share
Old 30th July 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
Muser, it's not that often somebody is aquainted with the application of the laws of electronic circuits to social/market/etc.~ behaviour.
Old 30th July 2012
  #17
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
Muser, it's not that often somebody is aquainted with the application of the laws of electronic circuits to social/market/etc.~ behaviour.
Thank ye kindly.

there are probably two subjects I've looked over the last 10 years which have been the most interesting I've ever looked at.

The one your talking about is one of them.
Old 30th July 2012
  #18
I disagree the public can't handle (the increased) variety. They choose and pick unconsciously in line with their past experiences, cultural background, and communication with peers.

It (the increasing variety) just doesn't fit with the (established) top down consumer model, these corporation conglomerates DESPERATELY are trying to maintain. They're taking an artist and present him or her as the "representative" for a genre. Often this works and the "re-invented" genre becomes a genre in itself. (Example: the american media presenting Skrillex (Sonny Moore) as "Dubstep" in the USA and subsequently rest of the western market, while it has little relation musically (he's a rock musician) or culturally (these are "concerts" instead of faceless dance music) with the original "Dubstep" (a form of dub influenced dance music (including repetitive patterns) as it was previously known (mostly in the UK).) It has nothing to do with the talent of the artist but everything with the presentation (product placement).

For example a reaction of a Berlin clubber/blogger on the corporate representation of a genre, and what it means for him:
Dance Music at the Grammys: What Skrillex, Deadmau5, David Guetta, et al. Mean (or Don't) | SPIN | Control Voltage
Posting that doesn't mean I agree with him on all fronts, just that this and other reactions are evidence of a split, because of misrepresentation (hijacking of cultural "markers" and using those in a different context). The reason for this is obvious; it's an attempt to move the focus from the dancefloor itself to a stage, and transform a dance culture (which is inherently fractured and democratised (interaction between dancers and artist) and therefore almost impossible to capture for a few big players) into a consumer culture. The example is the marketing of Tiësto, Carl Cox etc. in the late nineties, with one important distinction: Those were and always will be proponents of the (faceless) dancefloor oriënted culture, no matter what their "hero status" is, or is supposed to be. And Skrillex, and Deadmau5 are not, because of product placement.

Indeed the feedback is through media corporations, while pretending they're correctly representing public reactions. They're not, but an (unknown) amount of consumers still think they are. The resulting controversies and negative feedback adds to the media hype, thus increasing exposure and expanding it beyond those media corporation channels.
Old 30th July 2012
  #19
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Reptil. I just did a little search in order to clarify more precisely what I mean and Interestingly I found this.
Emerald | Kybernetes | ANTICIPATING FATE: BEYOND FEEDBACK TO FEEDFORWARD BY PROCESS PATTERN RECOGNITION

I was looking for something regarding a phrase I remember which was supposed to have been made by IBM.
"information overload leads to pattern-recognition"

I think I'm using 'variety' in the context of information not market choice.

I agree that variety just doesn't fit with the (established) top down consumer model.
basically the model is incapable of having the requisite variety to handle the emerging variety.
That would be needed to fulfill 'ashby's law of requisite variety'.

and I also think we would probably agree that the creatives these days, who are often the participating public,
are tending to follow some pre-existing structural models for both the expecations and forms for their Music creations.

I iclude identity because I think it's a large and important overlooked element.
Identity has two features. Homeostasis & variety.
basically meaning, it seeks to stay the same while seeking to produce variety.

There seems to be a larger and larger emphasis right now on 'staying the same'.
which I basically usually file under 'homogenization'.
Old 30th July 2012
  #20
Lives for gear
 
chrisdee's Avatar
It remains to be seen if people 50 years from now are listening to Justin Bieber like some of us are listening to Beatles and Elvis today.
Old 30th July 2012
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
Reptil. I just did a little search in order to clarify more precisely what I mean and Interestingly I found this.
Emerald | Kybernetes | ANTICIPATING FATE: BEYOND FEEDBACK TO FEEDFORWARD BY PROCESS PATTERN RECOGNITION

I was looking for something regarding a phrase I remember which was supposed to have been made by IBM.
"information overload leads to pattern-recognition"
hmm do I get it right when I translate that into: higher resolution of outcome (higher accuracy) because of increased input?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
I think I'm using 'variety' in the context of information not market choice.
market choice SHOULD in a capitalistic (free market) model follow context of information. (to connect some dots ) correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
I agree that variety just doesn't fit with the (established) top down consumer model.
basically the model is incapable of having the requisite variety to handle the emerging variety.
That would be needed to fulfill 'ashby's law of requisite variety'.
That would be the reason for the attempt of pushing out the increasing variety of information with a "blanket" of monoculture? (the "pop" genre)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
and I also think we would probably agree that the creatives these days, who are often the participating public,
are tending to follow some pre-existing structural models for both the expecations and forms for their Music creations.
Yes, most are firmly anchored. Of course this allows a cultural vacume, where the next wave of wild cultural experiments can grow. This is long overdue. Personally I'd think this is because of technical innovation has somewhat replaced creative expression in "pop" culture (again because of a top down model, where evolution has been directed towards one outcome)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
I iclude identity because I think it's a large and important overlooked element.
Identity has two features. Homeostasis & variety.
basically meaning, it seeks to stay the same while seeking to produce variety.
Variations pop up like mutations of the previous expression?
I often find that this is confused for being "everything's been done before". (Not in this thread of course, but generally speaking.)
Some then concluded modern culture (wrongfully ignoring variety) would refine itself to come towards a end-model of evolution. (to me a contradictio in terminis so I never could accept it)
See Fancis Fukuyama "The end of history and the last man"
(He was wrong of course, and his ideas (ab)used for other purposes (exactly the opposite of what he'd expected, ironically). And he retracted his earlier conclusions. (I laughed hard when I read that, personal vindication.) But obviously someone didn't get (or ignored) that memo. heh)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
There seems to be a larger and larger emphasis right now on 'staying the same'.
which I basically usually file under 'homogenization'.
Of course, I'd expect this as part of the top-down push for greater control (over the "marketspace"). Also I believe there's a larger emphasis on "staying the same" because of a subconscious cultural reaction on many things being out of balance; a cultural expression of "normalcy bias" perhaps? It would fit the increasing discrepancy between the rapidly changing reality of socio-economic systems and OTOH expectation towards those in our culture (and subsequently creative expression).

That said, it's (like always) a battle of opposite forces, never in equilibrium.
There's something new in the air here. I hope it can gain traction in an increasingly hostile environment (because of the top-down model).
Nature favours chaos and diversity.
Old 30th July 2012
  #22
AyA
Lives for gear
 
AyA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
Nature favours chaos and diversity.
Why type that?

How can nature, which isn't anything it's everything, have a point of view let alone a preference? I can't think of anything more absolute than nature and couldn't think of anything more absolute to say about it other than it just is.

Chaos does not exist. Random does not exist. You can not ever actually not both predict and retrace anything in an absolute universe. Nothing to nothing. Easy.

Diversity is what happens betwixt absolute nothings, from bang to crunch or node to anti node, as we expand through conscience, consciousness the universe and everything else, we are here to serve entropy.
Old 30th July 2012
  #23
It's a figure of speech, a way of writing an idea down.

The total order of the universe doesn't exist. Everything is different, everywhere. That was my point. so I respectfully disagree.
Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

which definition of entropy?
entropy - definition of entropy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
disorder?
there's a need for both within all of us, as so in our expression
to "serve" (hey it's you who started the nitpicking ), might be too strong an expression IMHO.

I have to go
Old 30th July 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
j-uk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
It's a figure of speech, a way of writing an idea down.

The total order of the universe doesn't exist. Everything is different, everywhere. That was my point. so I respectfully disagree.
Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

which definition of entropy?
entropy - definition of entropy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
disorder?
there's a need for both within all of us, as so in our expression
to "serve" (hey it's you who started the nitpicking ), might be too strong an expression IMHO.

I have to go
I hate entropy.. it's one of those concepts that seem so alluringly simple until you start to think about it......

Thumbs up for your previous comments, very well put.

Cheers

J
Old 30th July 2012
  #25
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
Identity has two features. Homeostasis & variety.
basically meaning, it seeks to stay the same while seeking to produce variety.

There seems to be a larger and larger emphasis right now on 'staying the same'.
which I basically usually file under 'homogenization'.
All systems seek balance, which in physics is described by Entropy and in biology we see homeostasis. Growth and change require work, and maintenance of innovation requires a steady and constant upkeep, or it will trend toward homogeneity.

I would argue that the trend in popular music is to take elements from many different and once popular genres, (i.e. sampling, which I personally have nothing against is an example), mash them up, put them in a key range that most of the population can sing along with, add one or two virtuoso elements, crank up the volume, and churn it out. There is growth within the pop market, and there are changes, but they still have to fit conventions that are dictated by marketing professionals. This is probably what keeps most pop music from being dynamic.

We have to consider that generally what we are comparing pop music to is itself. This is a closed system of sorts (corporate culture, top 40 radio, commercialized, not democratic) and will trend toward homogeneity within itself, and may appear more or less dynamic contrasted with other musical genres. These other genres act in their own cultural sphere.

If there were a dynamic shift, and the majority of the population starting listening to symphonic works, then producers and radio execs would follow the convention and try to understand what the population likes about these works, and will get in the game of composing and arranging symphonic works with breaks for commercials and mastered at levels that compete for the attention of the listener over the myriad of background noise in the contemporary world.

Pop music isn't merely what is popular, but is about branding as much as anything else. Branding tries to create a drive to consume the brand, and this has become pop music. Most people aren't ready for innovation anyway, and innovation takes time to diffuse into culture. By the time it does, somebody has learned to capitalize on it and brand it, and it loses its impact.

So maybe the emphasis isn't so much on staying the same, as giving people what they are ready to handle (with appropriate commercial breaks).
Old 30th July 2012
  #26
AyA
Lives for gear
 
AyA's Avatar
 

I define entropy as information about energy.


I should also define serving as existing.


I only nitpicked because everything else was stella, cheers for the info on why heaps of people keep saying dubstep and not giving up the dub...
Old 30th July 2012
  #27
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Reptil.

The idea on variety in terms of a system is that, if the system creates too much external variety and,
the tools to manage it don't have more or equivalent variety then, the system starts to fail.

This is basically a model of communications and control which was built up from investigations
into the nervous system. but it included social scientists, electrical engineers and all manner
of other disciplines.

you can hear more about it by youtubing (From Rosenblueth to Richmond - Part 3/6)

Quote:
hmm do I get it right when I translate that into: higher resolution of outcome (higher accuracy) because of increased input?
I don't know because I haven't read it. not sure if it would make for higher resolution in a social or artistic context. more likely a way of dealing with the effects of information overload. probably get a better angle on Nevitt by reading this. (which I just had a peek at)
http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/j...wnload/254/160

Quote:
market choice SHOULD in a capitalistic (free market) model follow context of information. (to connect some dots ) correct?
well if we take a context for variety and, lets say we call that an explosion of individual new creative works made available in the present, along with an availability of past works in the same context then we have an explosion of variety of choice.

I'd say, that variety of choice and the lack of requisite variety of the markets control mechanisms would lead to people reverting to pattern recognition in order to make the input intelligible in both market terms and experiential terms. when people create patterns they as you say (connect dots) but you can connect dots in all kinds of different patterns.

thats basically fragmentation of ordered information into unintelligible forms.
because there's so many different media forms moving at high speed we tend to make
ordered patterns even when we are looking at random images. like when your TV used to go to static.

The result is that information is made available totally outside and previous market control mechanism because the previous management structures simply don't have the requisite variety built into the system. so the system breaks down and creativity can't replace the value.
in entropy terms all the order of value is becoming lost and there's no system to replace it. people in that situation will of course still be creative but the transaction value drops to zero. this gives well organised PR marketing and sales teams a massive advantage over Artists.

There's a lot more to this but you get the idea.


Quote:
Yes, most are firmly anchored. Of course this allows a cultural vacume, where the next wave of wild cultural experiments can grow. This is long overdue. Personally I'd think this is because of technical innovation has somewhat replaced creative expression in "pop" culture (again because of a top down model, where evolution has been directed towards one outcome)
I'm sure there's a good amount of truth to that.

Quote:
Variations pop up like mutations of the previous expression?
I often find that this is confused for being "everything's been done before". (Not in this thread of course, but generally speaking.)
Some then concluded modern culture (wrongfully ignoring variety) would refine itself to come towards a end-model of evolution. (to me a contradictio in terminis so I never could accept it)
See Fancis Fukuyama "The end of history and the last man"
(He was wrong of course, and his ideas (ab)used for other purposes (exactly the opposite of what he'd expected, ironically). And he retracted his earlier conclusions. (I laughed hard when I read that, personal vindication.) But obviously someone didn't get (or ignored) that memo. )
I've not heard of him but I tend to agree with the idea of McLuhan, that history ends in an electronic medium because everything becomes available at the speed of light. History is a knowledge of the past and if it's all available at the same time, it alters what we experience as the past. in fact we experience the past as a part of the present in that new environment.

Quote:
Of course, I'd expect this as part of the top-down push for greater control (over the "marketspace"). Also I believe there's a larger emphasis on "staying the same" because of a subconscious cultural reaction on many things being out of balance; a cultural expression of "normalcy bias" perhaps? It would fit the increasing discrepancy between the rapidly changing reality of socio-economic systems and OTOH expectation towards those in our culture (and subsequently creative expression).

That said, it's (like always) a battle of opposite forces, never in equilibrium.
There's something new in the air here. I hope it can gain traction in an increasingly hostile environment (because of the top-down model).
I'm not sure if it's out of balance as rather moving far too fast to make sense of. but maybe that's just saying the same thing as you but with different emphasis on what we consider are the major factors.

and yes there is certainly something new in the air.
1
Share
Old 30th July 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Now my head hurts. But Beiber and Ke$ha's output still sucks, artistically. It's brilliant business product.
Old 30th July 2012
  #29
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Scholl View Post
All systems seek balance, which in physics is described by Entropy and in biology we see homeostasis. Growth and change require work, and maintenance of innovation requires a steady and constant upkeep, or it will trend toward homogeneity.

I would argue that the trend in popular music is to take elements from many different and once popular genres, (i.e. sampling, which I personally have nothing against is an example), mash them up, put them in a key range that most of the population can sing along with, add one or two virtuoso elements, crank up the volume, and churn it out. There is growth within the pop market, and there are changes, but they still have to fit conventions that are dictated by marketing professionals. This is probably what keeps most pop music from being dynamic.

We have to consider that generally what we are comparing pop music to is itself. This is a closed system of sorts (corporate culture, top 40 radio, commercialized, not democratic) and will trend toward homogeneity within itself, and may appear more or less dynamic contrasted with other musical genres. These other genres act in their own cultural sphere.

If there were a dynamic shift, and the majority of the population starting listening to symphonic works, then producers and radio execs would follow the convention and try to understand what the population likes about these works, and will get in the game of composing and arranging symphonic works with breaks for commercials and mastered at levels that compete for the attention of the listener over the myriad of background noise in the contemporary world.

Pop music isn't merely what is popular, but is about branding as much as anything else. Branding tries to create a drive to consume the brand, and this has become pop music. Most people aren't ready for innovation anyway, and innovation takes time to diffuse into culture. By the time it does, somebody has learned to capitalize on it and brand it, and it loses its impact.

So maybe the emphasis isn't so much on staying the same, as giving people what they are ready to handle (with appropriate commercial breaks).
well I find it hard to disagree with any of that but again, I think I have a slightly different idea
on what I think is most significant.

I think many people do demand a high degree of conformity and for all kinds of reasons.
tight groups of friends and families and aquantences are continually negotiating to keep their identity and values in tact.

if you call any of that into question they go nuts really quickly. a good example I've seen
were some early models on AI which were based on psychological functions.
so you'd get an array of assumptions and experiences which were contradictory. unresolvable paradoxes like

I love father. I love dogs. mother says father hates dogs. etc.

There's this jaw dropping program in the UK at the moment called "The only way is Essex"
The adherence to conformity is just out of this world.

but anyhow, I think what's a new emerging paradox is you have this conflict between the sheer unintelligible variety of experiences and the demand for strict adherence to norms. which are ironically fragmenting at ever increacing rates into ever more diverse tribal identites.

ok kenny I'll give it a rest. my heads been hurting for the past 5 years.
Old 30th July 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 
j-uk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post

There's this jaw dropping program in the UK at the moment called "The only way is Essex"
The adherence to conformity is just out of this world.
Isn't that exact show proof that the media entertainment has diversified in the last years and TV channels remaining core audience are the ones who are too sanitised either by environment or by personality to change ways?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump