I was looking through some catalogs from decades passed, and discovered many bands I've never heard of that topped the charts. And Lief Garret could totally rival Justin Bieber. Or, the other way around. And Black Sabbath? As legendary as they are, I don't see them anywhere in the top of the charts for the '70s or '80s. Same with many legendary bands (minus Zeppelin, or Queen, or Jackson, or Beatles, or Elvis, or-. Ok, so many famous artists were pop stars too).

So maybe not "was popular music ever good", but "how has popular music fallen in status?" is the real question. Because when you have Led Zeppelin with Rod Steward or Dawn or The Moments, or Pink Floyd, or the Jackson 5, you realize you may have had a reason to tune in. But the second you have Bieber with LMFAO or Katy Perry... Um...

Also found these articles...

www.webpronews.com/science-finally-prov ... al-2012-07

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ ... -Pop-Music
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... R820120726

Unlocked. Nappy screwed up once again.

There were plenty of shitty known artists in the 70's, 80's but it was on the 90's when the crap was overwhelming.

I have a 'theory' about it that's related to production and songwriting style: It's well known the fact that people who's not very much into music it's attacted by the catchiness of the rhythm and the simplicity of the vocal lines (only people into music in a more serious way pays attention to bass, solos and other details) and it's a known formula since, say, forever. From the 80's, mainstream music was done with this principle in mind, but since 90's the major producers decided to strip down even more the music, leaving it to a simple and catchy beat + a 'sweet' vocal line. This is how you have some Norah Jones or Adele songs with almost no instrumentalization being hits.

For example, listen Tatu's All About us song. From a compositional standpoint, it's an intelligent chorus: the vocal lines for the most part are just 3 sequential notes, following the pattern of the 1°, 2° and 3° grade of a minor scale, something very easy to learn and imitate, excepting the last line [Cause ya know (ah ah)]. That 'ah ah' breaks the pattern drastically, making that single part extremely memorable for some. It also has the function of changing the key, effectively working as a bridge from the chorus to the verse. This kind of 'analysis' can be made with almost all pop hits, since most of them are wrote using the same formula and the same people.

The only good thing about Katy Perry is that she's nice to look at, but her music on the other hand...

The problem with popular music is it's basically corporately manufactured, and the only things that get popular mostly seem to be what they can cash in on, be it the glam and new wave of the 80's, the altrock and grunge of the 90's, the nu-metal of the late 90's/early 2000's, the boy bands of the late 90's, or the rap/pop of the mid 2000's/now. What isn't a huge cashgrab but gets popular (Nine Inch Nails for one) doesn't get as much attention; how many other industrial rock bands besides them, KMFDM, and Ministry get that much attention?

It's strange how most people have no taste whatsoever. Shitty music is popular, shitty movies are beloved, shitty books top the charts, shitty TV shows get all the ratings...people just LOVE shit and hate art. If it's not simple, dumb, and popular, most people won't give a shit.

^Your strong negative opinion on popular entertainment must mean that you are more intelligent and enlightened that the idiotic sheeple masses.

They needed some time to establish formulas. Mid 20th century pop was still a field of innovation and most of the cheap tricks to hook the listener were invented in that time but were still used in more or less original ways. Nowadays they're just overused. The free market favors music that is easy to "get into" because easy equals more consumers. Chord progressions that trigger basic emotional responses, rhythms that are "danceable", simple, catchy melodies, predefined drama through predefined song structure. Those were processed into a few basic formulae for the successful pop song. Result: The death of artistry and complete focus on marketing.

It's not like they didn't have novelty crap that was famous decades ago, the flavour of the week BS has just gotten weeded out by time. However, I think in the past there was a higher standard in the mainstream, at least to some degree. It feels as though popular music is at an all time low right now. In rock music this is especially true. Even less than a decade ago it was a lot better than this. We had the White Stripes, Queens of the Stone Age were releasing great stuff (not that Era Vulgaris wasn't great, just don't think it was quite as good as what came before) and Black Keys were amazing. I don't think the Black Key's latest two albums were all that great, Queens of the Stone Age aren't quite as good and they haven't released anything for quite a few years and the White Stripes have called it quits.

As for rap, I think this party/club pop rap is horrible. I do like Logic (Young Sinatra), Mac Miller and a few Wiz Khalifa songs, but in general the vast majority of it is mindless crap. Great producers like Clams Casino are wasted on shit rappers like Soulja Boy and Lil B. Some of the brostep stuff is cool, but a lot of it isn't. It just seems to be more about entertainment than the actual music these days. I mean will the 2010's have a Led Zeppelin or a Nirvana? It really doesn't seem that way.

I think artists are actually more obscure than they were back then, is all. Music is more widely available. What's popular? Do you mean stuff that gets played over the radio? It almost seems cliche to use the "played over the radio" argument. That stuff is just trends. Judging the music on the radio is just pointless. Not to mention the common man that listens to the radio doesn't care about expanding his musical horizons. It's just going to get cycled into the infinite dumpster of obscurity anyways. Look at how much people hate that Justin Bieber. It's really easy to say you hate the mother fucker, and rightfully so. Is it worth it though? Do you honestly believe there's a chance he won't be all but forgotten within your lifetime?

Truly incredible bands DO, and have been becoming famous. I don't need to mention them. Look at the top 5000 albums of all time on rateyourmusic. It's all relative to your taste. What bands do you think are incredible? I think only 10 or 20 years ago radiohead came out. I don't care for them, but a lot of people think they're great. I really don't care about much other music than metal... I choose to have narrow taste.

It used to be all classical music that was passed down for generations written by musical geniuses (who fyi, are popular.) I imagine the artists who want their music heard can just use the internet... further swamping the music market with more endless stuff to sift through. Revolutionary music does, has, and always will exist. Just remember, up until not even 100 years ago, music didn't become commercialized.

Didn't the Doors top the charts? Neil Young? I'm sure there is talent to be found in most top 50s of every year regardless whether you or I enjoy it or not.

You should do some research on Classical and Romantic era composers. Many of them were hired by court officials to compose pieces fitting strict guidelines according to what was deemed popular at the time. The times were certainly different than today and of course Mozart is timeless but that doesn't escape the fact he was essentially told what to compose.

I'm referring to the advent of recording music, of course. That is interesting that there were such strict guidelines back then. What was that one, the tri-cord or something? Cord of the devil? Hah! I dunno. If nothing else, I think society has stopped being strict about music all together. However, I don't see what guidelines for classical music back then have to do with my point; the commercialization of music. Not to be argumentative. Also, it doesn't sound like classical music would have been something for the common man, as it is today, back then.

Yup, aptly called "The Devil's Note." You could be hung in the middle ages for playing it. Mozart actually used it a few times in his Requiem Mass, in fact. I was merely trying to make a point how popular music has, and always will be manufactured to reach it's target audience.
As per your common man statement, during the Classical Period that was mostly true- but around the dawn of the Romantic era that changed completely.

Technically, pop music can be any kind of music which isn't traditional or classical, including underground metal.

But I guess this topic is about Top 40, or the really popular stuff in other words.

I think it always had a large amount of filler. Some 1950s doo wop is really cheesy.

The Monkees were manufactured but surprisingly good, but that it is because the writers for the show were young and hip, and also had puns which would have been censored 10 or 20 years later. It was kind of new territory at the time, but despite a lot of great music in the 1960s, there was a lot of bad music too.

Actually, don't think I love all 1960s music, I find the early Beatles stuff atrocious.

The thing is usually only certain stuff is remembered, some stuff could have been really popular for a year but no one remembers it.

Now the 1970s were when they started really screwing things up, which is why punk happened.

I have been listening to a lot of early 70s heavy stuff lately, great stuff, but it was not the bands that were popular though.

Anyways, punk was heavily censored in the late 1970s through the 1980s. Some bands were actually in the tops in the UK, but mostly censored with a few exceptions. Same with the US, most of the music press, guitar magazines, etc. Or it was covered in the press and slagged (especially in the 1970s).

Yes, absolutely. Popular music was generally good in the 60's IMO.

I suppose Rock used to be the most popular form of music around. A lot of classic rock was really good, and really, me being raised on it is probably what enable me to embrace Metal later.

It's pretty easy to say a musician/band sucks nowadays (Let's take Lil' Wayne, for example), but give it 20 years and people'll be head over heels with it and say, "Oh, Lil' Wayne was a classic rapper blah blah".

I love metal, but I think it's silly to say "Oh this new shit sucks"; it's all about taste, really. There are more than a few modern musicians that are not metal and are my guilty pleasure.

This. A thousand times this. Anyone that's seen VH1 documentaries knows about the payola scandal, even if they don't know what artists were being bought time. That has been going on for decades and decades.



Yes again.



If Lil B (who can legitimately rap if he chooses to bother) didn't use Casino's beats, no one would talk about Clams Casino. It is a two way street. You can say the same about, god, any number of records. Take the RZAs beats and put the Fat Boys or Ma$e over them and he wouldn't be producing kung fu movies right now.

I couldn't disagree more. I was born in 1988, and as soon as I was old enough to recognize good music I discovered classic rock of the 60's and 70's, and realized just how shitty and talentless the music of my generation was. It's nearly 20 years since that time, I still say the same thing. I don't think there was anything classic about the 90's and I'm sticking with that opinion.

No one in their right mind will ever call Lil Wayne a "classic rapper", whether it's 20, 50, 100, or 1,000 years down the road.

Also on the topic of censorship, I suggest reading on the cancellation of the Smothers' Brothers show in the late 1960s. It is a fascinating topic, particularly as this was a real counter-culture program actually shown on national tv in the US.

I don't know, I think he has a point. Can you think of anything from 50 years ago that was, and still is, thought of as total garbage? Although to get an accurate survey of public opinion you would probably have to be around at the time because all we have now is what the media said, and if you go by what the media says today then it gives a very skewed idea of how the public regards different artists.

The first rock critic at a daily paper didn't appear until 1964. There literally isn't any serious criticism of popular music to really look at until then. None of it was taken seriously. So that's a problem when you talk about popular music and its perception. There was a lot of stuff written about jazz that was done with some seriousness in the 40s-50s-60s, but that is colored heavily with personal bias and things of that nature.

Well, I've always believed that had I been born in 1950 I would have loved popular music of the times, because I honestly believe that rock and roll is superior to contemporary music.

More and more young people are realizing that classic rock is better than today's garbage, and if people across generations can realize this, there must be some truth to it.

Also, what godsonsafari said.

Doesn't that reinforce the view that public disapproval clears up over time? I don't know much about Lil' Wayne but surely whatever criticism there is of him doesn't have its source solely in popular music critics? I just can't imagine that there wasn't a sizeable group back in the 50s who disapproved of Elvis, and publicly. In 50 years there won't be anyone saying "Lil wayne was sh*t", they'll be saying "People in 2012 thought Lil Wayne was sh*t". And there will definitely be certain groups thinking of him as classic.

The idea of anyone ever thinking THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBM1LCZKkQg is classic makes me tremble.

He's saying that there's no evidence of any public disapproval of popular music 50 years ago.

I remember the emergence of rock bands in the 90's who I hated then and who I hate now. For example Third Eye Blind, and other such groups. That was a good 15 years ago and I can honestly say Third Eye Blind was shit. I'll continue to say that until the day I die.

I'm surprised to see Tatu mentioned cause they're one of the few I like. If I have an entire pop album on my phone that's a good sign for them.

I also tend to favor some 80s pop. Once in a blue moon I like modern pop. It's almost like there's only one song a year that I will like. But I have more 80s pop than the 2 decades of pop after it.

It doesn't prove anything other than that music journalism was severely slanted against pop music and rock and roll. There's very little to go back to in order to discuss what was popularly considered "good" or "bad" other than word of mouth collected well after the fact by historians. On the flip side, someone who wants to look at how metal was viewed as a genre/subculture 35 years ago can find numerous publications and writings to reference.



Historians don't work by collecting present day opinions and repeating them. Historians collect information, preferably from the time frame in question, and use that to answer questions or re-evaluation positions or beliefs people have. Artists get re-evaulated over and over and over again and are compared against both those that they follow and contemporaries of whatever era one is currently in. But do people think back to those original evaluations? Yes. Should they when trying to operate in an analytic fashion? Absolutely.



Lots of people disapproved of Elvis. They also disapproved of Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly and everyone else attached to rock and roll and rhythm and blues at the time. Really they were generally disapproving of country western music too, particularly rockabilly. Does the lack of positive Buck Owens reviews in the early 1960s indisputably proves he sucked? Does it mean rock and roll sucked? No. No no no. Of course there will be those who always say it is terrible. Which brings us to....



There very well may be people who are highly critical of Wayne. There are innumerous critics and historians that will gladly shit on Bobby Vee or Frankie Avalon's contributions to popular music.

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy!
But here's my number, so call me maybe!

That song is catchy as fuck. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I will hand in my Metal Archives membership badge.

WHERE YOU THINK YOU'RE GOIN', BABY?

on your first point, I agree as well, BUT... I don't think the popular music of then should be compared with that of now. Simply for the fact that the two are so far apart. Popular music before 1970 had nowhere near the broad spectrum of today's popular music, regardless of if you hate it all today - your options in the 50s and 60s were more or less comparatively small variations on rock standards of the time. If you prefer that one "base" style then you're BOUND to enjoy 60s "pop" more.

On the second point... is the jury in on this? I stopped paying too much attention in about 2008 because if anything, almost ALL of the rock-based music was being phased out. Even bands like Creed, later Bon Jovi and pop-punk types seem to have gone these days. And last time I checked the top 100 stuff, it would've been 70% hip hop/r&b, 20% idol contestants/manufactured pop (even that falls under r&b a lot), and 10% for the rest (indie rock, taylor swift + anomalies). I guess that would've been around the start of this year.

One thing that's always struck me as ...curious, is the notion that at some point (I guess in the late 80s/early 90s but not fully manifesting itself until the late 90s) the gauge of "cool" in the pop music became so much more about what black americans are doing both in and out of music. I guess every phase of popular music has its own dress code and the like, but hoo boy has this one in particular taken off. Maybe I just hate it more than usual because I'm white and have no interest in hip hop culture, I dunno. But it can take a long walk off a short pier all the same.

Pretty much. I know that a lot of people think that blacks were solely responsible for rock music but I strongly disagree. Blacks were clearly responsible for the blues, on which rock was based, but you can't tell me that black people are allowed to claim ownership on all the creative geniuses of The Beatles, a band that has contributed more to music than ANY black person who ever lived. That is not a bold or exaggerated statement. I'm not even a big fan of the Beatles, but their innovations and talent are absolutely undeniable.

The Beatles had a huge influence on musicians, to be sure, but they contributed more to music than ANY black person who EVER lived? That's a bold statement, and I don't agree with it at all. The Beatles took a lot from old black rock and roll, especially their early stuff. They basically just perfected the pop formula, then made it more interesting. I don't think you can compare them to the likes of Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, Robert Johnson or even Miles Davis, though.

But, but, its all the same! People on heavy metal forums tell me Sugarland and Avicii are indistinguishable and manufactured!



That isn't at all what the breakdown of record sales resembles. Country music is huge in this county right now. There's multiple stadium country acts and only one rock/pop/metal etc that can run them (U2). Rap sales are way down in the last 5-6 years. Country nearly outsells rap 2-1. Heavy metal (as defined by Soundscan, INSERT ABSRACT COMPLAINTS HERE) outsold rap this year.



That is the history of American music going back to the 1910s and Jazz. If anything, the late 1990s were the beginning of a separation point where the shift in demographics in the US began to foretell the growth of country music.

They started out taking influences from black rock and roll, but they very quickly evolved and created a new subgenre of rock with every album they wrote.

What subgenres were those?

And even still, I don't think all of that would measure up to Duke Ellington's legacy.

I think giving credit to the Beatles for inventing psych rock (as an example) is...wrong. They're an important band and certainly influential, but they didn't invent genres of music, really. "Popularized" I can see saying.

Popularized, and perhaps 'directed' a bit. I think The Beatles were responsible for the direction a lot of psych-rock groups took after them, but I don't think they invented it. I can't think of any subgenre I'd say they invented, but I'm waiting for EmeraldEdge to correct me.

The diversity plus originality of sounds and creativity by the beatles could be labeled 50 different subgenres of rock, much like metalheads today label 50 different subgenres of metal, even though metal itself is a subgenre of rock to begin with.

What subgenres, though?

The Beatles were very creative, but I don't see how they singlehandedly invented any subgenres of rock. They certainly were one of the foremost pioneers of psychedelia, but to call them the inventors of it is giving them a bit too much credit.

I'm not too learned on this subject, though, so if you could tell me the subgenres the Beatles are responsible for and point me in the direction of some of that stuff, that would be cool.