I promise I wouldn't make a new thread for this if it wasn't really annoying me lately, but I've been noticing this trend lately in popular music thats really getting to me. I'm not sure if it's always been this way and I'm just now musically experienced enough to hear it, but it seems that popular "rock" radio is just continually doing this same thing over and over again. I just noticed it on AFI's new boring single "Miss Murder," but the formula that rock radio seems to be following is a semi quiet verse with a really loose, typical melody, and then the booming chorus with an even looser melody and a wall of just lead guitar changing between three chords. I know this sounds like I'm explaining every song written after Nirvana, but it's really hard to explain exactly what I mean. It just seems that while alternative and rock radio is rarely exciting, lately it's like bands coming out with new songs are barely even trying anymore.

Some of the songs I think embody this are, like I said above, the new AFI song, that Ashley Parker Angel Song (Don't know the name), the Chili Peppers' Dani California, The All American Rejects "Dirty Little Secret," and 8 million more.

I only bring this up because it's really started to piss me off, and some of these songs just sound so typical that it blows my mind that the band could produce them, even if the band sucks. They just seem devoid of any sort of hook, musical or otherwise, which seems odd because pop radio is all about the hook. Am I the only one noticing this trend, or am I just dumb and this has been happening since the dawn of time?

Every once in awhile popular music hits a stride thats listenable. We have a period in the 90's that saw the birth of grunge the off the wall new age tunes of the 80's and the arena cosmic rock of the 70's. But for the most part bands whose goal is to hit the big time and who concentrate on sales of records rather then the art behind the song making process will constantly conform to fit what sells. Right now what sells is the teen punk pop music that follows the exact formula you just named. It's rough and I find I completlely stay away from popular radio and mtv of any sort, and concentrate on the internet and blogs to find my new up and coming bands. On the plus side the boy band and Brittney like clones of this decade seem to have faded out enough to not dominate air play. I don't know if I agree about the hook though. There still seems to be a large market for a horribly written song with a catchy chorus. The All American Rejects, Fall Out Boy, Panic at the Disco, Mobile, AFI, etc... They all follow the formula. Could be worse, at least they play intruments and play a part in writing the song, even if the song is crap. I choose not to listen, I find the best music today needs to be sought after and researched extensively. I always feel like I've earned something when I come across a great band and spread the word to an audience who seems to appriciate it.

I understand what you mean, "Television". Mainstream rock bands seem to all sound generally the same. Of course they have their own styles, but when you actually look into them, not much seperates them. Looking at Fall Out Boy, Panic! at the Disco, and other big peppy punk rockers today, they lack any sort of depth. I can't see them as playing music for any more than money and fame. I'm much less musically intelligent than some of my friends who tell me that many of these big bands lack much musical skill and their songs are embarassingly simple to play. I wish there were more radio stations devoted to REAL alternative and indie rock, just to challenge the boring, generic mainstream formula. I always check the lists of the top downloaded songs on iTunes Music Store, but so many of them, besides lacking a basic hook or interesting melody, sound very much alike.

But I find the situation to be much worse in country music. I have ranted before on this site and I'll rant again: modern country music is horrible. I want to go back to the 90s when country (and really rock music as well) was so much more interesting, catchy, melodic, and inspiring. Growing up on 90s country, I can tell a huge difference between the unique, melodic songs of real country, and the strange state of country music today- covering Big & Rich's rock lunacy, piano-dominated sap songs with few actual country elements, and horribly cliche, bad boy cowboy artists like Toby Keith and Trace Adkins.

I agree with "Soft Silly Music": While I of course come across mainstream songs and bands that I thoroughly enjoy, great songs that I find from artists off the beaten path always seem more special.

Meh. I think it's a commonly suggested argument at any given time, that 'pop' music is lifeless, shallow, repetitive crap.

And, I'd agree.

The only addendum I'd make to it though is... so is a lot of Indie stuff. In fact, arguably, there may actually be 'more' crap indie stuff than pop stuff (we just don't have it forced down our throats every time we turn a corner). I wouldn't say that definitively, but I would argue that every once in awhile 'pop' produces a genuinely listenable and appreciable album.

Likewise, so does indie. And to me saying that one is different than the other, is perhaps, well, misguided.

There's an ocean of tripe out there. Every once in awhile you'll stumble across a diamond. It 'may' come from the pop charts, or it 'may' come from meta-critic, or hell, it may come from your neighbors garage.

Regardless, you still have to wade through the shit, no matter whether it's indie or pop, before you're likely to find something worth listening to.

I haven't even turned on the radio (other than NPR) in 7 years, so I have no idea how bad it is. It's probably payola that influences the shit they put on the airwaves. I mean, anytime you have to pay companies to play a certain song, logic would dictate that the song wouldn't merit airplay by itself, at least in most cases.

Payola article

Theres no hope >.<... Ive waited 10 years for a new pearl jam, nirvana, or guns'n'roses. Havnt found a drop of exceptional popular music in over ten years, thats REALLY bad.

My crappy lil theories as to why... I think the internet makes it hard for bands to sell and get popular, because people just download music for free, so to counter this bands have to sell out and conform to get the record contact bcus labels wont even try new slightly risky stuff.

Also live music. Live music doesnt have as big of an influence as it did. I say this without any facts. But I cant see how poeple would choose to go to a hip hop/rap concert to pose whilst standing around over head banging and moshing to grunge and hard rock.

...still this doesnt account for 10 years of only a little scatter of decent artists.

I hate and envy people who like rap and hip hop. I absolutely hate it and am disgusted by anyone with that taste but at least their enjoying themselves.

Grab a copy of the DVD of eels with strings: live at town hall; that should end all this BS BS.

"I Like Birds" should make anybody a believer.

quote:

Originally posted by Donbo:
Theres no hope >.<... Ive waited 10 years for a new pearl jam, nirvana, or guns'n'roses. Havnt found a drop of exceptional popular music in over ten years, thats REALLY bad.

My crappy lil theories as to why... I think the internet makes it hard for bands to sell and get popular, because people just download music for free, so to counter this bands have to sell out and conform to get the record contact bcus labels wont even try new slightly risky stuff.

Also live music. Live music doesnt have as big of an influence as it did. I say this without any facts. But I cant see how poeple would choose to go to a hip hop/rap concert to pose whilst standing around over head banging and moshing to grunge and hard rock.

...still this doesnt account for 10 years of only a little scatter of decent artists.

I hate and envy people who like rap and hip hop. I absolutely hate it and am disgusted by anyone with that taste but at least their enjoying themselves.

That is one the most small-minded things I've read on these boards. You're disgusted by people who like a kind of music you don't? Saying something like that probably isn't a good way to introduce yourself to a crowd like this.

quote:

...still this doesnt account for 10 years of only a little scatter of decent artists.

This is the worst of this guy's rantings if you ask me.

You will get to an age where you stop listening to radio, as it seems one big trail of headache. This point came to me about 3 years ago. I used to listen to the new alt. radio stations but nowadays just don' turn it on. Thank god for sports radio during the day, and now the ipod/itrip, where I can listen to what i want, and when I want. Music stations allow you to turn them on.....but you can also turn them off. I just don't turn them on anymore.

Maybe I am turning into my Father (happy Father's Day by the way) but it's just a lot of noise nowadays. I like my own noise. It's generational(?) this turnoff switch, and I just turn it off. A little rant to add, and just my two cents....

The radio sucks, blah, blah... Mainstream sucks blah blah...

Fuck that. The first time I heard "Miss Murder," I loved it. I don't like AFI for various reasons now that they're on Dreamworks (a major), and I was leukwarm on them before (because I thought they were gimmicky and one-dimensional) when they were on Nitro (a very small indie). I think "Miss Murder" sounds like a cross between Against Me! and The Misfits, along with a little bit of Placebo or Depeche Mode, and its an interesting mix of the past 20 years of music that, frankly, only AFI could do. I REALLY like that song and, because I don't listen to radio, it hasn't gotten on my nerves yet. I see how it could, though.

Its also important to note that AFI would have never made that great song if they were stuck on Nitro.

It's always been the case that mainstream music has had scattered gems, but been mostly mediocre.

This is mostly because pop music that sounds exactly like all the other pop music is automatically going to be more accessible than niche groups and fringe acts.

quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay:
It's always been the case that mainstream music has had scattered gems, but been mostly mediocre.

I don't know about "always." Look at the album charts from the mid to late 60's, and tell me that they were 'mostly mediocre:' The Beatles, Stones, Doors, Byrds, Kinks, et al dominated popular music. I'm guessing things started turning in the 70's, and your statement is certainly true for today's pop charts.

There were a lot of novelty hits in the '60s, but hell, I was younger then, and I even liked those too. As well as a hell of a lot of awesome Motown/R&B.

Probably the easiest explanation for this is that you never had to hear all of the mediocre music from before whatever period you started heavily listening to music. For example, do you ever hear any Ace of Base on the radio anymore? Those guys were all over the radio in the early and mid 90s, but 15 year old kids probably don't even know who they are - just as 25 and 35 year old folks don't know all of the horrendous bands from past decades (and hopefully never will.)

There's always an Ace of Base or Limp Bizkit or some other horrible band copying someone else just for a spot on the charts, and they were surely around in the 50s, 60s, and 70s also. Luckily we don't have to hear those bands anymore, right? At least we only have to deal with a boat load of trash from this decade, and not all of the trash combined.

The percentage of popular songs that were gems was higher in the 60s and 70s than it is today, because there were a lot of great bands back then that were popular such as the Beatles and Rolling Stones.

But, if you look at the pop charts you also see a bunch of one hit wonder rock and r&b bands that you've never heard of.

quote:

It's probably payola that influences the shit they put on the airwaves. I mean, anytime you have to pay companies to play a certain song, logic would dictate that the song wouldn't merit airplay by itself, at least in most cases.

The interesting thing about payola is that it can work for indie labels wanting to introduce something edgy just as well as it can work to sustain the status quo. Historically, in fact, it was the newer, independent R&B labels that used the payola system to push their less established sound onto the air (and the larger companies pushing mostly pallid shit that lobbied Congress to ban the practice--weird, huh?). Without such a system stations may not have been willing to take a chance on newer sounds that offended people's sensibilities for various reasons. I understand your suspicion of labels buying airtime for their "products," musicfanatic; I just think it's actually a bit more complex than you're allowing.

I wasn't neccessarily saying that what's on the pop charts right now is worse than before. I mean, no matter how bad Panic at the Disco and Fall Out Boy are, they are 8,000 times better than the bubblegum explosion in the late 90's. I mean, I was the target market age and I thought it was insufferable. But what i was saying is there is this very specific sound no that seems to be coming from established bands releasing new material, and maybe some newer acts too. I'm also definitely not saying mainstream music sucks blah blah blah, but interesting discussion.

My Chemical Romance - Helena is freaking awesome, but obviously doesn't follow the Nirvana template/outline described above. I agree most mainstream alt. rock blows. A lot of current mainstream music is really good, though. Crazy - Gnarls Barkley is great. Outkast has had great singles over the past few years, and I'm sure the new stuff will be just as good. Some of the MOR adult alternative have artists produced some good singles lately. That Fray tune Over My Head is pretty good.

quote:

Originally posted by Television:
But what i was saying is there is this very specific sound no that seems to be coming from established bands releasing new material, and maybe some newer acts too. I'm also definitely not saying mainstream music sucks blah blah blah, but interesting discussion.

What you're hearing, T., likely has a lot to do with ongoing consolidation of radio station ownership among a few, large media entities. I was shocked on moving to Bloomington over six years ago do discover how deeply music consultants have penetrated into small to mid-market radio. Station ownership spends a lot of money retaining the services of somebody who will tell them what music will attract their target audience. Program Directors and Music Directors in turn had better have a damn compelling reason to contradict focus group research. The same companies that conduct music focus groups for radio in turn report findings back to the major labels, who in turn pressure artists to fit the current mold, which makes for a homogeneous sound.

Sure, there's the occasional hit that comes out of nowhere with a bold, new sound, but it only leads to a rush to sound just like that bold, new sound and the cycle starts all over again.

With little likelihood of the FCC undoing the changes of 1996, the prognosis for this changing on the radio any time soon is not good, I fear.

Now Playing: "Johnny Viola" Shearwater Palo Santo