Pop music is not pop music anymore!

It’s techno. Techno rules the current generation, what was the backwater of raves, took over pop music. Pop music is no longer songs like Billie Jean by Michael Jackson or I Can’t Go For That by Hall and Oates… it’s all techno now.
Pop music died, all we have is techno now, there is no genre of pop music anymore, other than the tautological, it’s considered “popular” music, and is therefor “pop”… but realistically, it’s just techno or modified techno now, and has been for a while.

I drink pop, therefore I drink soda.

It’s a dumbed down blend of techno, pop and rap.

Pop was folky etc, in the 60’s, rocky etc, in the 70’s, and now its techno-like.

Though we have had the latter for quite some time now, and there isn’t much variance nor innovation - comparatively. Tbh i think music isn’t important as it was, and isn’t going through exploratory stages as it was.
Having said that, if it now had characters like e.g. Hendrix, + modern equipment available, i’d expect things to be more varied and not mostly techno.

Thing is, you get people like hendrix, the beatles etc, in situations/times which are exploratory, hence none now and no really good music. Its all become a bit like some ghastly school band managed by teachers.

Pop music in the past was genre-less… the 60’s and 70’s were more the singer/songwriter era than anything, I wouldn’t define them by Hendrix, or even rock, that was more the 90’s. I think it’s only until modern times that we literally lost pop music, and it all just became techno, or as was mentioned earlier, somewhat rappish at times.

It is the ever increasing narrowing of musical possibilities that leads inevitably to this kind of period in music. It is, quite literally, a ‘running out of options’ in terms of anything original being created. Today, something only sounds like something before it, etc., etc.

But this condition is suffered only by commercialized, mainstream genres, because they exist within a very rigidly defined set of boundaries. Because of these boundaries, there are fewer possible variations available for something like Country or Rap, for example, in contrast to something like Jazz.

It is also a matter of the consumer public being what Frank called ‘musically illiterate’, and the ways in which music styles are advertised for that public. Fast forward to 3:16:

youtube.com/watch?v=gdncUKM … 6466FD7EDE

(there is a much better interview with Frank about this very issue somewhere but I don’t have the patience to go find it right now)

Outside of the Techno part, this is a lament every generation repeats, forgetting those before them made the same lament against them. And I certainly hope you’re not holding Hall & Oates up as pop paragons. For your information’s sake, here are some excellent Pop artists who are not primarily techno:

HAIM
Lana Del Rey
Mumford & Sons
Misterwives
Keane
The Killers
Muse
Lorde
Tove Lo

and many others. So, stop playing the curmudgeon and expand your listening a bit. It’s better than fading away in nostalgic obscurity.

How exactly have musical possibilities been “narrowed.” There have never been periods of music (or art) where most music didn’t sound like what came right before (or long before) it. And the consumer public has always been primarily ignorant of the greater amount of quality music available. So, again, this period is hardly different. Since you seem to see yourself as someone with knowledge of the better music available, I’m sure you must be aware of these outstanding musical artists who prove this period is hardly “fallen”:

Arctic Monkeys
Lana Del Rey
Lorde
Grizzly Bear
Mumford & Sons
Foo Fighters
Conor Oberst
The War on Drugs
TV on the Radio
Ryan Adams

And there are many more. So, I wouldn’t worry about our current music era. It’s doing just fine.

Of course pop music is still pop music. Every generation, the members of the fading generation irrationally–and without support–deride the current generation of music because they don’t “get” or like it. Here are perfect examples of excellent artists–much better than Hall & Oates–who aren’t just techno:

Arctic Monkeys
TV on the Radio
Lorde
Lana Del Rey
Mumford & Sons
Grizzly Bear
Tove Lo
The Black Keys
Kings of Leon
Adele
…and many more

If a man could live two hundred years he would have experienced the evolution of music as a steady progression with a single, profound moment of punctuated equilibrium, occurring between 1920 and 2015. A period of momentum that would never happen again. This was a period in which there was an electric great leap, and this significantly speeded up the inevitable process of playing all general, recognizably melodic structures in music… and then repeating them in the broken down, simplified pieces and parts that compose modern mainstream pop. The age of sampling and generic, nauseatingly predictable three part melody/chorus formats. In the seventies alone, every bit of music you heard afterward was already played, already done. The frontier was already pioneered, you could say.

I’ve always said that there is a geometrical symmetry between the modes of capitalist production and the structural form of modern music composed in those commercial circumstances. The music begins to resemble the mechanisms that produce and distribute them. A cheap, autonomous, mass produced product that looks like the one beside it, made as quickly as possible for as little as possible for as much as possible. Each part that passes you on the conveyor belt as you stand there in your white apron doing your shift at the factory, is a song you hear on the radio.

Once in a while, I ADMIT, a few clever songs appear. But compared to the seventies and eighties, there is far smaller volume of really good songs. I think anyone over thirty would agree. There again, all this is relative to age and time and opinion of course, so you are ultimately right.

I’'m sorry, the period between 1920-2015 is almost the entire period of Western popular music and is far too great a period of time to constitute a “single, profound moment of punctuated equilibrium.” Also, you don’t support your erroneous claim at all; you can’t just expect people to accept your claim because you say it’s true, particularly when it’s not.

.
This is all unfounded conjecture you neither support with syllogistic logic or vital evidence. Also, you’re again treating the entire period of pop music as just a section of that period. That doesn’t work.

Again, you always saying there is a geometrical symmetry between the modes of capitalist production and the structural form of modern music composed in those commercial circumstances doesn’t make it so. You have to back your arguments up. You don’t back up anything you say above, and your imaginative metaphors don’t substitute for that support.

Outside of your last sentence, this is just wrong. The Seventies and Eighties, like all decades, was full of garbage, and our current period has as much quality music as those periods. If you’re such the musicologist, please give your analysis of the artists of all three periods to show how those two periods were better. If you can’t, you have to admit all you’ve been saying is just personal bias.

Well… I hate contradictions. So actually I hate almost every song lyric ever written. I listen to music for the sounds more than the words, I try to ignore the words as much as possible.

For example, the Bee Gees have a song called “Too Much Heaven” That probably shows off their harmonizing better than most of their songs, and these three brothers are probably the best harmonizers in music history, male or female (there are some songs and passages of songs where all three of them sound like a choir - and they can pull top music voices out of thin air, Robin for example can do a perfect Brian Wilson, Maurice can do a perfect Lennon…) but the problem with the lyrics is that “too much” is by definition a BAD thing… they should have written the lyric “Nobody gets enough heaven anymore” to be logically consistent… but what lyricists do, is try to smash a bunch of words together that KINDA make sense, and sound good together. I would submit like Zoot that the 70’s and 80’s had more diversity on the charts than the other eras including our own. Music after the 70’s and 80’s is different, but as far as the charts are concerned, not as diverse. People actually got mad at the Bee Gees for dominating the charts so much… they hold three records in music, most number one singles in a row (6), most songs in the top 10 at one time (5), and longest time spent on the charts for any solo artist or group. You’re not going to see something like that from todays artists.

This is all subjective conjecture. You actually have to make a comparative and analytic argument showing how the Bee Gees are the “best harmonizers in music history.”

Again, this is pure conjecture you fail to support with any argument or substantial evidence. Do you really just think your believing something makes it true?

Dominating charts by no means reflects a musician’s quality. In fact, throughout history many great artists failed to make the charts, while many terrible one’s dominated them. So, again, you have failed to show how today’s artists are inferior…and they’re not.

It’s quite simple with the Bee Gees actually… they can cover any artist on earth and make it sound really good, if not exact… no other artist can cover the bee gees and make it sound better or exact. Now you’re talking about some hypothetical group that came together in Antartica during some expeditions there in the 1950’s and were never recorded… people want to make money, if the group was good, they’d be played… that’s the way the economy works. Groups seek recognition from producers and producers are always looking for groups… the odds that there were 3 dudes out there who could do what the Bee Gees did (and they invented a whole genre of music during their careers - the precurser to techno by the way) is staggeringly low, and considering the nature of people, I doubt they exist.

No, it’s not quite simple, actually. Many artists and musicians can cover any artist and make it sound good…although I doubt The Bee Gees could have covered Metallica or Frank Sinatra. And the Bee Gees couldn’t cover any artist and make them sound better or exact, either. So, your own logic eliminates the Bee Gees as the greatest artist…and they’re not.

Nothing you say here says the Bee Gees were particularly special at all. And they definitely didn’t invent a whole genre of music. So, you have still failed to support any of your arguments about music.

There was supposed to be a session where the Bee Gees sang with the Beatles, but the Beatles thought they were too cool for the Bee Gees, so the Beatles producers, who sat there with the rights to the songs, simply said “Just cover some Beatles songs”

youtube.com/watch?v=ETeeWJUQk-w

Those 3 men could sound like all 4 Beatles… Maurice is doing Lennon’s voice. You haven’t listened to much Bee Gees or you wouldn’t be saying that. Sometimes they decide to put their bees gees slant on things, and other times they copy. They had those options.

Robin sounding exactly like Brian Wilson… this song has a couple choruses by the way, which is unique in music, not just bridges…

youtube.com/watch?v=HBwqiq1PN0E

And if I’m not an authority on harmonizing, perhaps you’ll consider Brian Wilson one… here’s where he inducts the Bee Gees into the rock and roll hall of fame…

youtube.com/watch?v=H5ObWUNnjXA

As I had already put you on ignore, Eccmandu, I can’t read your posts. I do suggest, however, that you actually listen to a bit more of today’s music before erroneously condemning it. I also suggest you stop adulating the Bee Gees…they weren’t that great.

Please don’t turn out to be one of those tedious didactic philosophers who is always demanding evidence and proof and has perfect flawless arguments all the time. It’s okay to let things slide once in a while, Peri. You are making me have to dedicate time to debating and I don’t want to do that. I just want to be right and I want you to agree with me. Is that so much to ask?

Again, this is pure conjecture you fail to support with any argument or substantial evidence. Do you really just think your believing something makes it true?

You actually have to make a comparative and analytic argument showing how the Bee Gees weren’t that great.

Touché!

(I got this, Ecmandu. I’m not going to stand here and let somebody insult the brothers Gibb like that.)