A very good insight on what's so bad about pop since the eighties when it all became electronically generated with pop singers that are manufactured and tone deaf.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with the premise of this video.
Even though I love the music from the 1950s and the 1960s, my research has shown that much of it was manufactured in the same way that music from the 1990s and on has been. Countless 'singers' were given record contracts because of their looks, rather than their vocal abilities. Fabian is a perfect example.
If you were successful, your music had to sound a certain way. Rick Nelson was booed in a concert when he attempted a more adult sound, and the result was the single Garden Party.
I think you'd have go back to the jazz era, and the classical era, to escape some of that type of manufactured sound. And even then, genius was often not recognized immediately. Operas had to sound a certain way, or they were rejected by the public. Similarly with orchestral pieces. Even jazz to a certain extent, depending on what era you were in (swing, bop, etc.).
There's a saying by the science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon that I think is a truism - 90% of everything is crap (and I've paraphrased that last word).
You'll find plenty of disagreement about what music is crap, and what is art and creative.
If you grew up with and listened to a certain type of music or sound, then you tend to like it (and think it's art), regardless of whether it's really crap or not from an objective perspective.
It's really all in the ears of the beholder. If it pleases you, and makes you feel good, then go for it.
I was only able to withstand half of the video because it went on so long, and first-off I don't buy the rocking chair analogy because I don't think people are good judges of quality woodworking and are randomly apt to pitch the chair on trash day or pass it on as an heirloom, not based on craftsmanship. When the presenter got to the part about compression and audio processing I agree that electronic fiddling with sound is a major factor in how music is packaged and today's music more than ever, with vocal and instrumental passages doctored through whole rooms full of gadgets and multi-track wizardry to the point where songs qualify to be categorized as electronic music. And Artisan Radio is absolutely right about a strong expectancy by the listening public for music to sound a certain way and that anything that sounds 'strange' to the ear of the non-professional public is passed over and rejected. Artisan said and I agree even classical music has gone through times when certain composers were downed and oppressed including Rachmaninoff, Mahler, Sibelius, Prokofiev and others.
One thing I have yet to hear anyone talk about is an expectancy in popular music for artists to groom badly. Rock stars must dress in odd shabby garments and mismanage head and facial hair so they look like rejects from a homeless camp.
@artisan-radio Yes I agree with your points and all true BUT.....lets take Fabian as an example. Was he a singer like Bobby Rydell, no, but he had musical inclination, an ear for music, he could "sing" in tune(or pitch). There was no machines(autotune) then that corrected you because you had no ability to keep in pitch. Listen to the records like "tiger" or "turn me Loose". He isn't off key, he had to be able to do it in the studio with the band, or even his good looks wouldn't have worked. A few lessons or help was all that was needed. All the singers especially male in those times were good looking. That was part of what would make them a success with teenage girls. There's a difference between being a singer and being able to keep a tune. I used to play guitar and sing myself but I wasn't a singer if you know what I mean. I couldn't stand to listen to myself. Is Mick Jagger a good singer? Are the blues singers like John Lee Hooker or Elmore James great singers? Is Johnny Cash a good singer(just another example)? No, if you compare him to Elvis, but it was good in the sense that he(and they) had a style that was theirs, perfect for what they did, and didn't need autotune. Even the singers that made it on looks, had to have some talent and musical inclination also. It's like saying that Gene Simmons(Kiss) can't play bass but how can you be in a band and not be able to play the instrument to a certain level of play. There was no faking it to backing tracks then like now.
Hey, they had to use an echo chamber for Ricky Nelson during his career (until he became Rick Nelson anyway). Back then they just had different technology to enhance performers.
All I'm saying is that music that doesn't suck is in the ears of the listener. I personally don't like much music beyond 1990, except for those musicians that came from earlier eras and managed to survive. I like 80s music, particularly new wave, even though it started the electronic craze. The 70s is hit and miss for me (too much bubblegum), but anything prior to that I enjoy.
I don't pretend that any of it is better, just that I like it. I grew up with it, and much of it made an impact on my life.
There are few masterpieces in the popular music genre after 1950. Even the Beatles and their like pale in comparison to many jazz and classical composers and musicians (which was, in some part, the popular music prior to 1950). I listened to an episode of Kraft Music Hall a while ago from the early 1940s, and they had Jascha Heifetz as a guest star playing several classical pieces. You'd never see (or hear) that after the 1950s.
Edit: Sorry, I think it was Command Performance. Anyway, you get the drift.
A few posts back Artisan Radio mentioned certain musical styles that were expected by their audience, including opera. Artisan said: "Operas had to sound a certain way, or they were rejected by the public." That was true, and there is a reason why operas were held to a certain standard. The opera form was a type of stage entertainment based on vocal musicianship in the days before the electronic public address system was available. Therefore, opera singers needed to project their voices in a way that filled the hall and it was determined that the special method of using the voice to be as full as possible was developed and requires special training. The invention of the microphone opened a whole range of possibilities for singers to have a quieter tone dependent upon electronic amplification. Some more modern opera composers deviated creatively away from the "old" style, such as Kurt Weill, who used his own wife, Lotte Lenya, to sing a principle role in 'The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny', and she was not trained at all. Weill wanted a 'street sound' and opened the way for more inventive uses of voice in opera. By the way, Lotte Lenya sang 'Moon of Alabama Song,' which later became a hit when it was done by The Doors.
Keep reading for Part 2 of my remarks on singing voices.
It's not only the voices, but also the form, that caused some operas to be judged harshly - only to be later recognized for the masterpieces they really were.
Mozart's last opera, La Clemenza di Tito, is a good example of that. It was universally criticized for reverting back to what was then seen as an outmoded form of opera seria (when his comedies were immensely popular). In short, it didn't sound like the audiences felt it should.
Developments surrounding phonograph records brought the age of crooners like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Polly Bergen, Doris Day and Perry Como. These singers brought impeccable articulation and relaxed vocal tone, aided by orchestral arrangements that blended voice frequencies with instrumental backing by keeping the orchestral accompaniment away from the octave range of the voice. In exact contrast of this the rock era dropped the muscianal discipline and began using highly amplified loudspeakers as auxiliary instruments and employed screaming and yelling as a means of mixing voice with over-amplified instrumental backing and singers began using vocal contortions to further project their voice above the racket. Virtually untrained stars arose with only a small dash of 'talent' and the public, itself under-educated, found musicianship brought down to their own level. Merely buying a 'guitar' or drum set is the entry fee for becoming a musician. Having a garage can be useful. Dancing with a microphone stand makes a show.
Lol.
There were some so-called rock stars that had talent, and injected creativity and talent into their works.
Some artists that immediately come to mind, across the gamut of genres, include The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, etc. That's not even the crossover crooners and jazz artists that found their way into popular music, particularly in the 60s and the 70s, such as Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Nat King Cole and others.
Still, what I enjoy listening to, and what I know objectively is 'good', are often two different things.
Artisan said a truism: "Still, what I enjoy listening to, and what I know objectively is 'good', are often two different things." At least it earns truism status when compared with my own self-contradictions. I come across as a pompous smart-guy when I rip into pop music, but also know that there are 'natural' talents, who have ability despite lack of schooling, and this is true throughout intellectualism. Charles Bukowski was a drunk self-taught poet whose published works are still best sellers long after his death, Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman who taught himself how to write by visiting public libraries and whose books are a treasured part of my collection. Some people have 'something in them' that makes them natural geniuses and it's a mistake to try to rule them out. If you like it, keep it around. It's fun to criticize and write about all this, but it's important to leave room for other people's choice and new ideas.
Artisan again.
Earlier in this thread Artisan Radio said something that I eventually ended up saying, when he said: "It's really all in the ears of the beholder. If it pleases you, and makes you feel good, then go for it."
Carl said "Virtually untrained stars arose with only a small dash of 'talent' and the public, itself under-educated, found musicianship brought down to their own level. Merely buying a 'guitar' or drum set is the entry fee for becoming a musician. Having a garage can be useful. Dancing with a microphone stand makes a show".
This is the Rock and Roll era I assume you are referring too? I find it contradictory that you say this, when, a while ago on this forum we were having a discussion of whether Rap was music or not and your position was it is music. That you said this about Rap(it's music) but then said this about Rock and Roll.
That being said, I have this opinion about music coming down to the general public's level.
Just because something is very complex doesn't mean that simple is no good. Because a movie gets critical acclaim, wins awards, does that mean I have to like it?
Does it mean I am inferior if I don't listen to classical music? Even if it gets acclaim as masterpiece? A lot of Jazz especially modern has no structure or melody, just an array of dis-chords that have no followable melody or structure and is 4 instruments each doing their own thing without coming together in any distinct harmony or tune...and I am told that this is better because it is on some intellectual level that I don't understand.
My brother was once playing Bach, on the piano and I was listening and couldn't believe that this array of meaningless notes that went on for an hour was some acclaimed masterpiece. I, who didn't play piano at all, knew nothing of where the notes were, what keys to play, said I can play what you are! I sat down and did exactly what he was doing, and after a surprised expression/reaction said to him...this is what you say is on an intellectual level, that this is complex....I just did it without having to look at a music book. Now not all classical is like that, and not all jazz is like modern jazz. Don't get me wrong. More contemporary jazz like swing big band like you hear with singers like Billie Holiday are songs with more variations on chords and played by an orchestra, but a song in jazz style. But this stuff with no structure that is considered at a level above the general public and we are made to think this is masterpiece is brainwashing for lack of a better word.In 1963 a garage band of kids, 2 guitars, bass, drums, in their parents home came up with an instrumental called "wipe out", was recorded in their garage and a major hit and a singable melody and drum part that every drummer plays the first thing they play.
To this day every drummer knows wipe out. Is that a masterpiece? Is a song with a simple melody, to a few chords that the general public can relate to, that someone can sing while walking down the street inferior? Everything doesn't have to be complex. It's in the ears of the listener as Artisan mentioned.Artisan...I should add Brian Wilson to the creative talented artists of rock.
This post was modified 2 years ago by Mark
Agreed. Brian Wilson was a genius. My list was not all inclusive.
Re Bach. You're probably describing counterpoint, and Bach was a master. Very mathematical, and it takes some time to appreciate. As does a lot of jazz.
Again, it's all in the ears of the listener.
If disliked remarks about music cause an angry reaction then we are no longer talking about music, the whole issue becomes a matter of psychology. Becoming defensive about music is emotionally the same as becoming defensive about religion. It's a deep belief and humans tend to think their beliefs are real. Hatred of classical music might signal a hearing impairment. Rap music is obviously music but it's simple music, at a child's level, making it useful as a teaching tool not only for music but for word composition since a component of rap is a free-flow of prose poetry. But let's also realize that debunking rap is a dog whistle for hatred of black people. Some simple music is genius as you indicated. For me Link Wray's 'Rumble' is a perfect example of simple music. I can't hear it enough. And classical too has it's simple side. the music of Arvo Part is minimalist music, so called because there's so little to it. It is so amazing that it actually reaches the level of a religious experience. When I babble about music I always feel that someone will be annoyed. And yet I do it. Maybe there's something wrong with me.