Science Determines Pop Music Is Too Loud

  • Context: Music 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Music Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a study analyzing the evolution of pop music from 1955 to 2010, focusing on trends in loudness and musical diversity. Participants explore the implications of the findings, the nature of musical progression, and personal preferences regarding music styles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a study indicating that pop music has become louder and more homogenized over the decades, with a decrease in the diversity of chord progressions and melodies.
  • Others express skepticism about the study's conclusions, questioning how loudness can be considered an intrinsic property of music rather than a playback characteristic.
  • Several participants share personal opinions on the decline of pop music quality, citing a preference for earlier music eras, particularly the 1970s and 1980s.
  • Some participants suggest that the music industry may influence artists to conform to specific sounds, potentially stifling creativity and diversity.
  • Examples of musically diverse artists and genres are discussed, including The Beatles and jazz, with participants debating what constitutes diversity in music.
  • A few participants reflect on historical trends in music complexity, suggesting that fluctuations in musical sophistication have occurred throughout history.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the study's findings and implications. While some acknowledge a perceived decline in musical diversity, others challenge the study's interpretations and the definitions of loudness and diversity.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion includes subjective opinions on music quality and personal experiences, which may not align with the study's findings. There is also a recognition of the historical context of musical evolution, suggesting that trends may be cyclical.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in music theory, the evolution of popular music, and the impact of the music industry on artistic expression may find this discussion relevant.

zoobyshoe
Messages
6,506
Reaction score
1,254
Researchers in Spain used a huge archive known as the Million Song Dataset, which breaks down audio and lyrical content into data that can be crunched, to study pop songs from 1955 to 2010.

A team led by artificial intelligence specialist Joan Serra at the Spanish National Research Council ran music from the last 50 years through some complex algorithms and found that pop songs have become intrinsically louder and more bland in terms of the chords, melodies and types of sound used.

"We found evidence of a progressive homogenisation of the musical discourse," Serra told Reuters. "In particular, we obtained numerical indicators that the diversity of transitions between note combinations - roughly speaking chords plus melodies - has consistently diminished in the last 50 years."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/science-music-idUSL6E8IOE3320120726
 
Science news on Phys.org
I don't know if you needed a scientific study to show this! ;)
 
Did they pay royalties for those million songs in the archive, or did they snipe them?

Is this what killed Knapster?
 
I think the pinnacle of rock, some of which became pop music, was the early 1970s - and maybe a plateau during the 70s into the early 80s. However, since then it's been down hill. I can't listen to pop music.

I'll stick with classical rock from about 1965 to 1985, and good stuff like SRV and Satriani since.
 
I wish that I had been of an age to hitch my way to Boston to attend Fleetwood Mac's Tea-Party concerts. My mother would have freaked out, anyway. The original "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" was a wonderful band, with one of the best rhythm sections in the business (thus the name), and the initial line-up was great. You don't need stacks of Marshall amps to impress the crowds - just play. IIR, Peter Green and Danny Kirwan (both Les Paul afficianados) would use their trips to the states to pick up Twin Reverbs, Super Reverbs and other Fender amps that were rare in England.
 
I'm curious. How could they possibly have determined that "the music is intrinsically louder"?

Loudness is a property of playback; not a property intrinsic in the music itself.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I'm curious. How could they possibly have determined that "the music is intrinsically louder"?

Loudness is a property of playback; not a property intrinsic in the music itself.
Perhaps a measure of the dynamic range?
 
That said, can anyone find examples of music that is considerably more musically diverse (and I mean music that isn't just plain "weird" in that weird for the sake of weird sense, like middle-pink floyd records or primus)?

I want to think I can find examples of more diverse sounding music that aren't just weird, but I really don't know.
 
  • #10
Illuminerdi said:
That said, can anyone find examples of music that is considerably more musically diverse (and I mean music that isn't just plain "weird" in that weird for the sake of weird sense, like middle-pink floyd records or primus)?

I want to think I can find examples of more diverse sounding music that aren't just weird, but I really don't know.

The Beatles are a good example. Their early stuff all sounds the same. However, their later stuff (after Revolver) gets more experimental, and every song has a different "sound"; i.e., different combinations of instruments, different mixing, different tempo, different attitude, and different subject.

Another great example is the jazz era. There is a lot of variation in feeling, from slow and sensual to hot and jumping. Jazz orchestras in the 30's played at dance halls and were expected to play music for all kinds of dances.

I can't imagine artists today actually want everything to sound the same, unless they are just uncreative people. I would guess that music industry marketing has something to do with it...pushing artists to define themselves by a particular "sound", and insisting that every song on a given album have similar qualities to that one song that was really popular.
 
  • #11
i think we must be imprinted for life during interval age 18 plus/minus five years or so.

i found much of the late 50's / early 60's R&R annoying, so listened instead to Miami's classical station WVCG.
Arthur Fiedler's Boston Pops is still my favorite group.

That said, can anyone find examples of music that is considerably more musically diverse
diverse? I'm not versed in music theory
but
Grab most any Fiedler/Pops album and you'll find a mix of Baroque era to R&R.
It was Fiedler who said fifty years ago "One day we'll be playing the Beatles in symphony halls."


fiedler_play_beatles.jpg


Their rendition of "Tequila"(not on this album) is a delight.

old jim
 
  • #12
jim hardy said:
Their rendition of "Tequila"(not on this album) is a delight.
And I can still remember all the lyrics!
 
  • #13
We all knew this. There's some great dynamic symphonic metal, though.
 
  • #14
Ben Niehoff said:
The Beatles are a good example. Their early stuff all sounds the same. However, their later stuff (after Revolver) gets more experimental, and every song has a different "sound"; i.e., different combinations of instruments, different mixing, different tempo, different attitude, and different subject.

I don't think this is what the article is talking about:

"We found evidence of a progressive homogenisation of the musical discourse," Serra told Reuters. "In particular, we obtained numerical indicators that the diversity of transitions between note combinations - roughly speaking chords plus melodies - has consistently diminished in the last 50 years."

I think what this means is that, regardless of choice of instrument, tempo, attitude, subject, etc, pop music has gotten less and less sophisticated in terms of chord progressions.

To demonstrate what that means, here's the chord progression of a Beethoven piece:

Beethoven: Symphony No. 7: ii. Allegretto:

Am E/G# E Am (Am) C/G G C

C B Bm [A Am] Am [E/G# Am] E Am

Here's a much simpler piece:

Pachelbel: Canon in D:

D A Bm F#m G D G A D

The study is saying that the difference between pop music 50 years ago and pop music today is like the difference between the Beethoven and the Pachelbel, that the chord and melody journey have become more limited, less diverse. Fewer chords means you're automatically making duller decisions about transitions from one chord to the next.
 
  • #15
Char. Limit said:
We all knew this. There's some great dynamic symphonic metal, though.

Opeth accompanies me on my drive into work almost everyday. When I'm in the mood for some heavier stuff, it's Fleshgod Apocalypse.

(OK, right now, Megadeth's discography is on strict rotation, because I'm getting myself prepped for their concert here in a week's time, but at other times, it's mostly European bands that I listen to).

Symphonic/melodic/progressive death/black metal doesn't seem to be having such an issue with a compromised dynamic range.
 
  • #16
zoobyshoe said:
The study is saying that the difference between pop music 50 years ago and pop music today is like the difference between the Beethoven and the Pachelbel, that the chord and melody journey have become more limited, less diverse. Fewer chords means you're automatically making duller decisions about transitions from one chord to the next.

Oh, if that's it, then that's nothing. It's happened on and off throughout history, it will reverse itself eventually. Compare:

Plainchant: Chords? What chords?

Early Baroque: OK, you can have thirds. I, IV, V, vi, ii, III

Late Baroque: Bach fugues. Sevenths, diminished, suspended, appoggiatura, etc.

Early Classical: Return to simplicity. Melody over block chords. I, IV, V7, vi, ii, III7

Late Classical: Mozart fugues. Increased chromaticism. Modulate to weird keys. Sonata form.

Early Romantic: Forget about forms, feeling is more important. Simple, bold chords (a la Beethoven). Modulate to mildly weird keys, sometimes. Add a 9th here or there.

Late Romantic: 11th and 13th chords, complex harmonies exploring dissonance and resolution (a la Mahler).

Modern: Experiment with rhythm and tonality to create organic mass of texturized sound (Stravinsky, Schoenberg). Not sure if this is "simple" or "complex".

Film Era: Forget about depth, just make it sparkly so Han Solo can ride his broomstick through the gates of Mordor.
 
  • #17
Ben Niehoff said:
Han Solo can ride his broomstick through the gates of Mordor.

There's a movie I want to see! :smile:
 
  • #18
Ben Niehoff said:
Oh, if that's it, then that's nothing. It's happened on and off throughout history, it will reverse itself eventually.
I dunno. Pop doesn't come out of that tradition, and 50 years ago it wasn't so sophisticated that it can afford to get even less sophisticated.
 
  • #19
zoobyshoe said:
I dunno. Pop doesn't come out of that tradition, and 50 years ago it wasn't so sophisticated that it can afford to get even less sophisticated.

Right, pop comes from a tradition that started with African polyrhythms and went through spirituals, ragtime, blues, jazz, rock, motown, punk, R&B, metal, rap, etc. I don't know the detailed history of all of this, but I do know that 50's-era rock was very simple, much simpler than the jazz and blues from which it evolved. Rock subsequently expanded into something more complex by around the 70's and early 80's, after which I think we saw simplification again.

Usually the "new, edgy" styles are simpler as a rebellion against the complexity that existed at the time. Look at the beginnings of punk, for example (or of 50's rock).

I don't feel like modern pop music is driven by a rebellion against any musical tradition, though. To me it feels like we've had about two decades of "blah". I also get the impression that young people of today (my generation and the two or three after), in this country, don't feel very strongly about anything in particular, musically or politically. Where previous generations saw musical movements, today we seem to have musical complacency. It is mere entertainment, and not a "voice". There are probably several causes.
 
  • #20
Ben Niehoff said:
Right, pop comes from a tradition that started with African polyrhythms and went through spirituals, ragtime, blues, jazz, rock, motown, punk, R&B, metal, rap, etc. I don't know the detailed history of all of this, but I do know that 50's-era rock was very simple, much simpler than the jazz and blues from which it evolved. Rock subsequently expanded into something more complex by around the 70's and early 80's, after which I think we saw simplification again.

Usually the "new, edgy" styles are simpler as a rebellion against the complexity that existed at the time. Look at the beginnings of punk, for example (or of 50's rock).

I don't feel like modern pop music is driven by a rebellion against any musical tradition, though. To me it feels like we've had about two decades of "blah". I also get the impression that young people of today (my generation and the two or three after), in this country, don't feel very strongly about anything in particular, musically or politically. Where previous generations saw musical movements, today we seem to have musical complacency. It is mere entertainment, and not a "voice". There are probably several causes.
This sums it up well.

I still wonder what the people behind this study were up to. Seems like a lot of work for a not very important point.
 
  • #21
Those who think that young people today don't care politically aren't looking at the right young people.