"Old songs now represent 70 percent of the U.S. music market. Even worse: The new-music market is actually shrinking."

  • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    number of options has exploded. But I think this has had the effect of emphasizing quantity and variety a bit more and quality and sophistication a bit less.

    well, no. within the much larger pot, way more artists than the beatles and led zeppelin are getting the same or more money, and having bigger tours. and this def translates into a lot of quality.

    supported in their long term musical development

    this is a bit euphemistic for the shitty way studios behave. Big cash cows being allowed to release whatever dumb shit they want =/= 'long term support'. everyone else who wasn't printing money was and still is subject to what studios think is worth releasing. i'd say the highest level of support from studios ever conceived would be like, archetypical K-pop and its a labor nightmare---which by the way pumps out some serious quality

    Singer-songwriters for example are writing objectively simpler melodies and chord progressions

    :citations-needed: no seriously. no one's quantified that, only cherrypicked. and this literally encodes the subjective importance of 'melody complexity' over many other aspects of songwriting.

    • p_sharikov [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Money and tours aren't what make a quality band though. The Beatles actually stopped playing shows so they could focus on studio work. Their label set them up with an absolutely incredible classically-trained producer who was essential to their development. He was basically a personal tutor for them to learn time-tested techniques, which is critical if you want to reach a level of competency where you can experiment in ways that aren't basically just esoteric. (I love experimental, esoteric music, btw. Not knocking it.) The Beatles mastered an incredible number of genres and styles before entering their really innovative phase. From what I understand, the music industry does not provide much music education anymore. I think you could accurately call the current musical landscape a collection of talented amateurs and some "corporate" acts with songs ghost written by a committee of marketing specialists. We're seeing a lot of variety and clever experimentation from random talented people, but a much lower level of refinement, and a lot of time wasted reinventing the wheel. A lot of songs frankly sound unfinished, or way overproduced.

      The Beatles wrote like 200 extremely varied songs, many of which alone would have made another band's career. Interesting but concise melodies with incredible, distinct arrangements. I don't think they could have done that today.

      Regarding simpler melodies, I'm not sure what you mean by "quantify". I'm just pointing to a general trend in music. I can't nail it down very specifically, but something along these lines is definitely happening. Melodies are either really simple as with many popular artists, or they're really complex for the sake of being complex, as in the case of wanky technical / experimental bands. There's not much of a middle ground anymore where you can find artists who writes complex but tasteful melodies done in a variety of styles, while not just solely rehashing previous bands' work.

      this literally encodes the subjective importance of ‘melody complexity’ over many other aspects of songwriting.

      I'm not saying complex melodies are the most important thing in music, just that I'd like to see some part of the music industry still prioritize it in the way it apparently used to.