Thinking outside the box.

[AlanHall]

* Erik Satie was pretty popular and famous around Paris. But today, beyond classical musicians not many people would recognize the name like they would Beethoven or Wagner.

At the risk of derailing this thread:

People may not know his name, but millions will recognize the first Gymnopedie at a "hey I know that song" level. Your comparison is a bit like saying Elton John is forgotten because the Beatles and U2 were bigger.

If you substituted Nancy Sinatra for sir Elton, I'd agree with you

[lesmac]

chants with drums

Isn't that where the blues came from?

[cosmicdolphin]

Today...Rap and hip hop played a big role in shaping today's music. Both of these genres were built without basing themselves on earlier music. Rap I think more than hip hop. They reinvented the wheel and LOST all the great ideas that they should have been builting on.

Not based on earlier music ? If you'd done your homework you'd know they came out of funk and soul and jazz and poetry and mc'ing and dj'ing and various other things.

That is the reason I think they sound so awful.

I think Country Music sounds awful - Hip Hop & Rap may sound awful to you...Those are two of the biggest selling music styles there are. Folks have different tastes. Make the music you enjoy, and if you want to get anywhere in licensing enjoy the music that's relevant to current tastes or be prepared to stay in a small niche.

Mark

[RPaul]

Both of these genres were built without basing themselves on earlier music. Rap I think more than hip hop.

Aren't the roots firmly placed in earlier Black music?

They reinvented the wheel and LOST all the great ideas that they should have been builting on.

In art, why would anyone do anything someone else thinks they SHOULD be doing? Is it not all about free expression?

Tom

Yeah, hip-hop was decidedly based on earlier music, especially early disco and funk, and fairly literally. In fact, the two turntables stuff came about because the music they were playing at block parties in NYC didn't have long enough instrumental breaks, so they had to use two turntables to extend it. Since then, lots of genres of music have been sampled in the process of creating hip-hop music. Check out the Wikipedia article on hip-hop and rap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_m ... e_of_disco) for an overview.

While I'm decidedly not a big rap fan in general, there have been some songs over the years that I've really liked, with my all-time favorite's being Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPO76Jlnz6c), which is heavily based on Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" off his classic Songs in the Key of Life album.

I'd think, if one were to try to make an argument against hip-hop and rap (which I will not do -- there are plenty of styles that don't fit my personal tastes that some consider elevated art forms), the more likely argument might be its contribution to democratizing music, so even non-musicians could make it. In particular, the use of samples and loops meant you didn't have to play an instrument to create a hip-hop track. You just had to be able to slice and dice already-created music and/or combined loops someone else made (of course, you could also create loops yourself, and many top hip-hop producers did, but that wasn't strictly necessary), and have some aesthetic and technical sense for combining the ingredients. Nor did you necessarily need to be a singer for the rap side.

Of course, hip-hop and rap have also had big influences on other musical styles, both in the beats and with incorporation of raps into styles like pop. The rhythmic influences are the aspects I've most been drawn to personally, sometimes incorporating hip-hop-influenced beats in my decidedly non-hip-hop music. (The closest I come to actual hip-hop, which isn't very close, is on a classic Christmas carol, "O Little Town of Bethlehem" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVnrQLWM7E4 -- which even includes a rapped verse.)

As for the art, expectations, and free expression, I agree that art should be about free expression. However, if you're trying to reach a wide audience with your art, there also has to be a communication aspect of that expression, and shaping that communication aspect typically imposes some restrictions. For the most part, while you need to have something unique, to make your art recognizable, you also have to not be so far afield as to not be relatable to your potential audience. (To give an extreme example, if you're trying to reach an English-speaking audience, you're not likely to do so with a song that has a Russian lyric whose musical style is based in Chinese opera.) Of course, the really influential artists tend to make more of a break from what has come before than less influential artists do, though sometimes, as in the case of the Beatles, this may come after having already attracted a devoted audience's ears to have them ready to listen when you come along with more "out there" stuff. Other times, though, and early hip-hop may be one such case, as would stuff like Nirvana, timing, and reaction to what is viewed as a sterile environment, may foster bigger breaks from the status quo.

Rick

[charlie2]

Hi everyone

Tom said " in art, why would anyone do anything someone else thinks they SHOULD be doing? Is it not all about free expression?"

It's not writing music a certain way bc someone thinks they SHOULD be doing it that way.
Its LEARNING how to write good sounding aesthetic music.
What chord progressions they use...contour of melodies..arrangements etc etc

This is what the classic writers did...they studied, respected and appreciated what came before them. The opposite of today. This may be due to racism since rap was mostly started by afro americans

Yes you'll say rap//hip hop sounds just as good as the classic rock,/pop songs of the past but most people dont agree w you. It's only a small niche of people when you compare it with the billions of people out there. It definitely doesn't have the mass appeal that classic popular music has.

Music is my full time job and I speak to alot of people. 99% hate the current stuff. They just dont talk about it.

The reason they dont sound good is bc they rejected the basis of what made the classic songs sound good. Well written melodies and harmonies along with everything else.

O yes I agree with the other person...some country music is also awful...as with some rock...pop. what ever music which isn't well written. It's hard to write good sounding music. As john William's said...its just a matter of finding what sounds good. It's a long hard search

[charlie2]

Yes.
Man is not yet able to measure aesthetics in music.

So what we have to go on is the mass appeal at the moment. If most people hate a certain type of music then it may be safe to say that the music is not good....or is not aesthetic.

Rock..soft@hard/pop/r@b...etc...etc..and.everything considered popular music songs from the 50s to today is different.
This music had and continues to have an enormous mass appeal. Even across generations. Even older people listened to soft genres of rock/pop in the past. Big audience.

This is just not the case w rap/hip hop.

The numbers show the facts

[Zaychi]

Oh come on... there's a rebel element to this. Kids like the music their parents hate. You know that parents hated Elvis, right? And when those kids grew up, and got kids of their own, they hated punk? And when THOSE kids grew up, they hated house? The older generation will always say their kids favorite music is "awful" and "not really music"... and that is part of the attraction. Until they become mainstream themselves, and something new has to come up for THEIR kids.

[funsongs]

Speaking of dated... ... Charlie - you might wanna update your TAXI page link.

Seems kinda pointless, IMHO, to conduct a discussion/debate between
BOX A: the world of TAXI - aimed at music licensing, as mentioned...
for the purpose of creating income via marketing for film & TV, specifically -
and the very different
BOX B: the world of music & song, purely as the expression of one's preferred art form.

This thread brings to mind the Ken Burns documentary on Country Music - which really was much wider than the title suggests; (i.e. the segment about Brenda Lee)...
and particularly the road Willie Nelson's career took (and the birth and rise of Outlaw Country) - when he simply wasn't willing or able to be pigeon-holed into the Music Row machinery.
He just wasn't cut out for the controlled-for-radio-marketing Nashville sound of that day. And things haven't changed a whole lot with regards to the control of the gatekeepers there.
It wasn't until he returned to his Texas roots that he found his audience... and then 'the world beyond'.
EDIT: and the huge sales and mass-audience appeal of the resulting album was certainly a nose-thumbing signal to the Nashville establishment - because their 'art form' , as it turned out,
was highly marketable and profitable.

Looks like there are 2 different boxes to this thread.
Why criticize the music that doesn't appeal to you, or anyone? when one can be content to listen to what one likes.
There are plenty of ears to go around - and plenty of genre choices to suit each.
Why diss stuff you're not gonna listen to anyway? just change the channel...
there's no glory in raining on somebody else's party and parade.

Cheers,
Peter

[AlanHall]

Rock..soft@hard/pop/r@b...etc...etc..and.everything considered popular music songs from the 50s to today is different.
This music had and continues to have an enormous mass appeal. Even across generations. Even older people listened to soft genres of rock/pop in the past. Big audience.

In the same way boxed mac&cheese and Ensure have mass appeal. Easy to digest.

The numbers show the facts

I'd like to see the numbers that show music released the year 1965 (for example, any single year would do) is more widely listened to today than music released in 2019. I think the problem with comparing today's music to 'everything that came before' is that the former category only spans years (or months!) and the latter spans decades and generations.

edit: typo

[RPaul]

I'd like to see the numbers that show music released the year 1965 (for example, and single year would do) is more widely listened to today than music released in 2019. I think the problem with comparing today's music to 'everything that came before' is that the former category only spans years (or months!) and the latter spans decades and generations.

If you consider the Spotify charts (https://spotifycharts.com/regional/us/weekly/latest for the current weekly US chart) as indicative of what people are listening to these days, it is heavily dominated by hip-hop, especially up in the top section of it. For example, the entire top 10 is hip-hop save for #7, where the Weeknd (pop) has a track. And you only get 2 more pop/dance tracks, at #12 and #13 for Doja Cat and Marshmello (featuring Halsey), respectively.

Of course, streaming charts are different from sales charts in terms of their demographics, but streaming is pretty dominant at this point. That said, if you go to digital sales data for iTunes (http://www.digitalsalesdata.com/diydsd. ... ion=143441 for the US in the last 24 hours), you do get a different blend. For example, only 4 of the top 10 are hip-hop, mixed in with 4 pop tracks and 2 country tracks. And going further down the charts shows a heavier balance of country, pop, modern adult contemporary, and Christian contemporary, suggesting an older demographic. There's even a bit of classic pop and rock quite a bit further down.

Unfortunately, Billboard's album sales chart is behind a paywall, but for a CD & vinyl sales chart, perhaps Amazon is as good as anything (especially with COVID-19 lockdowns)? Their chart (at https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-mus ... zgbs/music), does show a mix of styles that is extremely light on hip-hop and includes a lot of catalog albums in addition to newer stuff in more adult-oriented styles like country, adult contemporary, and so on. But how many people are even buying CDs and vinyl these days? I can't remember the last time I bought a CD, though it was probably at least 5-10 years ago, and that was only to support a friend's band. While I've got a decent-sized CD collection, it's rare for me to actually listen to a CD -- I'm more likely to listen to anything, even if I already have it on CD, on Spotify.

Personally, despite my being an "old guy" (I'll hit 60 later this year), I mostly listen to newer music, especially modern pop and adult contemporary artists like Ed Sheeran, Halsey, Post Malone, Maroon 5, Billie Eilish, et al. I started listening to top hits radio a few years back while I was working on a pop album ("In and Out of Love Again") myself and just trying to get back in touch with what was happening after not having listened to pop radio in some time. Even after I finished the album, though, I kept listening because I found I really enjoyed many of the artists' music. I'd gone through a country phase from the early 90s until around the time they kicked the Dixie Chicks off (early 2000s?), which also seemed to coincide with when country radio started getting way more formulaic, even prior to the whole "bro country" thing, after a period of relative diversity. I also have gotten into playing newer songs when working with younger performers on the live front -- that's how I first heard of Billie Eilish and started covering some of Taylor Swift's newer pop material (I never really took to her as a country artist), for example.

Rick