Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As odd as it is, aside from a couple genres such as dubstep we essentially have the same styles of popular music we had 20 years ago. This is my theory as to why:
1) Gentrification of cities
After the Cold War ended, there was a backlash against anything remotely socialistic. This included price controls on housing in big cities such as New York. This kicking out of the poor was sold to the public because crime was very bad at this time (late 80s/early 90s). This caused major cities that were breeding grounds for music scenes to turn into gated communities for the world's rich, forcing the artists to leave. As a result we haven't seen any big scenes start in any major cities in America/the West since the early 90s with only a few exceptions.
2) Telecommunications Act of '96 and other monopolies
This backlash against socialism also allowed companies to buy out all the radio stations. This made it so that the same kinds of music, in fact in many cases the exact same programming, was broadcasted all over the United States. Not only that but the stations became more niche-oriented, in the 80s and before generally speaking all stations would play a mix of all kinds of music, but starting in the 90s you had classic rock, country, pop, etc, dividing people by their tastes, whether they're urban or rural people, their race, their generation, etc. This made any kind of change in music happen only within genres on a micro-level as people came to identify strongly with a certain style.
3) The Internet
In theory, the Internet could have been the ultimate boon to musical creativity. In reality, it's been the exact opposite. While anyone can now share and publish their music online, they're competing with millions of other aspiring artists. And even if you do score a hit - so what? The pie is so much more divided now, that you can get a #1 song and it won't even make you famous. Who would be able to recognize the faces of the Shop Boyz, who had a hit in 2007? Probably almost nobody.
The other thing is people can get any music they want for free now, so the sales potential is now very limited. Thus, record labels can't afford to take risks with 'weird' music, they have to play it safe. This is why Rihanna and Katy Perry have maintained successful careers for so long despite having very little talent or charisma. They know that pop genericum sang by attractive women will make them money. This is also why post-grunge Pearl Jam knockoffs were still being pushed as late as 2010. That's like if disco was still popular in 1990, or kids were still listening to surf music in 1970.
So in short, I blame the decline in music evolution and creativity on two things, that happened in the 90's ... the rise of the Internet and the fall of communism.
Is this necessarily true? And, if it is true, was the music in 1992 similar to 1972?
No it was very different. In comparison, the music of 1992 resembles today's music much more than it resembled the music of 1972. I think music from 1992 up to about 2005 changed very very little.
Perhaps our culture is in a state of homeostasis in regard to how we approach music. Most of the genre's of music that existed around the era of recording and radio represented regional and ethnic variations of the same music. Take for instance the song Crawdad Song, It has been performed by ;country ,blues ,popular, blue grass, jazz, folk, and western(cowboy) musicians. I would also argue that Dixieland Jazz and early Jazz are ethnic variations of the same music just as Blues and Rockabilly are.
In the modern age the environment or venue had as much to do with the development of new forms as did the creativity of the artist themselves. David Byrne did a interesting TED Talk on this subject. I think once we discover a new place or space to enjoy music a new form will emerge tailor made that experience.
While I am amused by Belmont's theory (and it does have merit), I think the biggest reason is something far simpler: digestable, appealing music is like types of pies... most types of pies were "invented" long ago, and we can really only tweak them slightly. Chuck Berry inherited applie pie, the Rolling Stones made applie pie with extra cinnamin, and maybe the Black Keys added raisons.
So I'm saying music (esp. popular music) is more of a commodity than a work of art. And most every form was done by about 1989. A musician in 1965 had a somewhat empty slate to work with, a musician in 2012 can only spice and dice. Few are doing this better than Diplo right now.
And I doubt new music in the year 2050 will be much different from today's.
Popular music by definition will be and has been defined by the masses, and the masses by and large are not "risk-takers" when it comes to music.
And I believe popular music doesn't and didn't really evolve as much a record companies "find/found" hotbeds of music and try to create a scene out of it.
And this is happening just the same as it has happened 20 years ago.
I think we're just starting to see the decentralization of popular music through the internet/streaming and record companies are desperately trying to make stars. Shows like xfactor and the Voice and American Idol are testament to the fact that people still want to see stars.
Ironically "selling-out" seems to be a thing of the past. There are many "indie" artists, that want to survive doing what they love and so by licencing their music they can do what they want to do.
I'd argue that the medium-sized indie labels are actually doing better now through licencing and internet than they ever have; while big record companies are not exactly hurting, but scrambling to keep themselves relevant.
Sure an artist like myself with no label, will have a tough time putting out music, just because the market is so saturated, but the internet makes it easier to promote and distribute for shows and licencing where you'd make the most of your money anyway.
To say that Rhianna and Katy Perry aren't talented is absurd. They have TONS of charisma, decent voices, appeal (sexual and otherwise) even though they have grade A songwriting teams, music producers and tons of money. Someone like Carly Rae Jepsen, will probably fizzle out because she just doesn't have that elusive staying power that other popstars seem to have. And Jepsen has just about the same talent surrounding her as the other popstars.
Lastly in Pop/Rock music there are recycled themes. Musicians are inspired by the previous generations. It's no surprise that we might start hearing more bands with a grunge influence because those making music today were listening to bands like Pearl Jam. Just like Jamiroquai (90's) who where inspired by disco and funk (70's) or Eric Clapton and other 70's bands that were influenced by the original Rock and Roll of the 50's and earlier blues. I can go on and on. Gaga and Madonna for example.
To say that Rhianna and Katy Perry aren't talented is absurd. They have TONS of charisma, decent voices, appeal (sexual and otherwise) even though they have grade A songwriting teams, music producers and tons of money. Someone like Carly Rae Jepsen, will probably fizzle out because she just doesn't have that elusive staying power that other popstars seem to have. And Jepsen has just about the same talent surrounding her as the other popstars.
Lastly in Pop/Rock music there are recycled themes. Musicians are inspired by the previous generations. It's no surprise that we might start hearing more bands with a grunge influence because those making music today were listening to bands like Pearl Jam. Just like Jamiroquai (90's) who where inspired by disco and funk (70's) or Eric Clapton and other 70's bands that were influenced by the original Rock and Roll of the 50's and earlier blues. I can go on and on. Gaga and Madonna for example.
Honestly I don't think Rihanna and Katy have very much personality at all. I think Carly Rae has a much better voice and is more talented as a musician as well. I hope grunge doesn't come back because the afterglow of it only just died a few years ago. It would be like it never went away and lasted 30+ years.
I may be looking at much broader jumps in music styles such as Jazz, harder rock and Hip Hop. I think a lot of it is generational, we tend to go long spells of time where the innovations of the past are just refined and added on to. Only during times of major awakenings such as the 60's and 70's we see massive change.
Based on generational theory, we may start seeing some rumblings of major change in the 2020's as the new artisan generation (they may have started being born around 2005) start to hit their teens and twenties.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
