Why do most new songs sound alike?

[Joe Drivdahl]

There seems to be a trend right now for businesses and even schools to tighten up; to narrow their scope and increase the depth. I know many smaller colleges are trying to decide what it is they do best, and then put the whole institution behind that one thing. In business, I think the same trends are occuring.

In music it seems there are about 8 - 10 artists that are being pushed hard, and the rest just kind of left hanging. The music from these few artists is pretty much the same: Honky Tonk, Bidonkadonk, International Harvestor, that kind of thing.

If the record companies are following the trend, and narrowing their scope, I guess that would explain why all this new music sounds so much alike. But the bottom line has to be they are making more money selling this crap than they would if they broadened their scopes and allowed more real country into the mix. But who is buying this stuff? Not me, probably not you people either, so who? There must be a huge 18 - 30 market out there for this kind of music.

Thats all I can figure. Any thoughts?

joe

[Donny Hinson]

Recording companies like playing it safe. When something "works" for one artist, they all want to get on the bandwagon and join the ride. Couple that with the fact that the same thing happens in songwriting, and the fact that most of the top recordings have the same producers and musicians, and you begin to see why everything starts sounding alike.

I stopped listening to modern country because everything sounded pretty much the same. It was like listening to 25 singers doing karaoke to the same 5 songs. Honestly, there's a dozen popular girl singers that I can't tell apart, and the same thing's true with the guys. A few, like Kathy Mattea and Lyle Lovett did some truly different stuff, but they weren't able to move the masses away from the sameness Nashville was addicting everyone to. Young people are now properly "indoctrinated", and the majority seem content with what the big labels are producing...basically singing butts, biceps, boobs and bellybuttons, what I call the four "B's". The really exciting and different stuff is coming from indie labels and producers. They don't have to answer to stockholders and execs with 7 and 8 digit salaries and stock options, so they're more free to experiment and take chances with new talent, or a different sound.

Big sales and quality products seldom go hand-in-hand, and Nashville has finally become "McMusic" incorporated.

[Richard Damron]

Joe -

Your question has been asked before on the forum and some, like myself, have attempted to answer but only intuitively. Apparently my take on the subject has been validated.

Donny's first sentence hit the nail on the head. How "safe" is "safe"? Read on.

Insert this into your browser: www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=181220

The first part of the article deals with currently accepted pop "music". Read the full article to see how these folks have expanded the technique to include motion pictures. You'll come away from it with the feeling that not much will change any time soon. The industry feeds itself the same pap over and over. Repetition and "sameness".

In my cynical view it is a sad commentary on the state of the industry - where musical "tastes" are dictated solely by past performances without space for expansion and experimentation. Best we get used to it - a machine now makes the decisions!

Richard

[Stan Paxton]

I don't know, Joe, how one can account for all the different "tastes" in one genre, such as country music. Right now seems they got a mouth full of this stuff you are describing, and as long as it tastes good with enough to make tons of $, then don't change the recipe. Right now I'm sitting here listening to 1949 era Grand Ole Opry archives, thinking this is so great, simple, beautiful stuff; and it just keeps getting better for a number of years there. Well, maybe new ears come along and they hear things differently, so time changes everything. Now that would make a good country song!
God Bless & have a Great '08

[John McGlothlin]

I agree with ya a millionper cent Joe. Its mainly a money racket rather than a music industry anymore. All the new and younger artists focus on getting by as cheap as they can. I have accepted the fact that its a young people's world and the rest of us have to go along with it or pull over to the side and let em by. I agree that time changes everything but for cryin out loud, does it have to knock the wind out of our sails to. My personal opinion of all the new artist is this.... IF YOU'VE HEARD ONE...YOU'VE HEARD EM ALL.

[Richard Damron]

John -

If you'll go to my reference on the web, then you'll know why your last statement is precisely correct!

Richard

[Joe Drivdahl]

Thats right, guys. Its all about money and squeezing ever dime they can get. Sure you can call it capitalism, or charging as much as the market will bear like the oil companies are doing right now, but at least they could have a decent product. I can't believe what some people will pay to go hear these newbies sing off key.

I can go to a karaoke bar and hear the same thing for free, but I'd miss out your the 4-B's, Donnie. Actually if I went to the right bar on the right night, I might see more B's than at a concert

What really gets me is even in a place as starved for entertainment as eastern Montana, when young people get married, 9 times out of 10 they'll hire a DJ to play that Nashville crap rather than a live band. Why? Why not just bring in a TV and put it on CMT and away you go. No charge.

Joe

[LARRY COLE]

The younger generation buy the new rocky music.
The older generation don't.

The younger generation buy high priced concert tickets.
The older generation don't.

The younger spend their money on music.
The younger generation don't.

They cater to whoever is going to spend their money with them.

The young sexy singers get the attention of the group that spends the money.

[Stephen Gambrell]

It's just the same three chords!

[Clyde Mattocks]

It's been said many times here in various ways, but
it's more effiecient for a big company to produce
something by a set formula and then convince you by
media bombardment that you like it, than to than to put different stuff out there and see if you'll bite.

It's the same with Kraft. There are probably healthier, better tasting alternitives out there, but they have us convinced that's what we need to buy when we go to the supermarket.

Good music is out there, but you have to seek it out and support it. No Depression magazine is going under, but I'll bet you have bought a People magazine since you bought No Depression, if you have ever bought one.

[Theresa Galbraith]

I think it's always been that way, new or old.

[Joe Drivdahl]

Clyde,
I hadn't thought of it that way. Because of my business school backgroud, I have always been taught that marketing departments research what the target market segment wants from a product, and then try to customize their product to suit that need. What you are saying is the reverse, and moreover, probably the truth.

They are taking a round peg and forcing it into a square hole completely disregarding the fact that round pegs don't go here. When you call their technical support hotline you get, "If it doesn't fit, use more KY jelly and push harder. It has to fit, its the only kind of pegs we make."

[Richard Damron]

Joe -

Your business school experience is still very much valid. Access the web URL in my first post and you will see that, not only do they use the same principles but apply modern technology in order to achieve very accurate results.

Richard

[Theresa Galbraith]

[Donny Hinson]

I think it's always been that way, new or old.

In a way, Theresa, you're right. Most people got into the business to do what they loved, and make money. Somewhere along the way, though, things got corrupted. No longer were the stars content with just "making a good living", and no longer were record companies content with "doing real well". They both got greedy. The stars now want millions. And the companies and execs? They want tens of millions, or hundreds of millions. After all, they can't have their own big personal jets to fly them all over the world on a puny 6-digit salary. People like Jason Flom, Eric Nicoli, and Richard Branson, these guys are big wheeler-dealers. You see, all that matters to them is money. Their paychecks are greater than some countries gross domestic product, and that means their idea of "doing well" in the recording business is just a little different than yours or mine.

[Theresa Galbraith]

I agree Donny it's different. I like music and it's music regardless.

Change is so hard to do for all of us. I love the old, but I'm living today and I love most of it and I buy today's music.

[John Roche]

Music has always sounded the same down through the years, look back at the early country songs they all used the same chord patterns of the day. And today they do the same , what ever is in vogue..

[Clyde Mattocks]

My point was not that the companies don't do market research, simply that once they find out what the
lowest common denominator is, they push ahead with
the most cost effective procedure, with is to put out
their formula product and then spend the money convincing you that it's good. If I held stock in
the company, I'd expect them to do it that way, however, I wouldn't necessarily believe the
propaganda.

[Theresa Galbraith]

I've always listened to what is good in the song, not what they tell me is good.

[Earnest Bovine]

I think any style of music would sound "all the same" to somebody who hasn't listened much to that style.

[Dave Mudgett]

Regarding Richard Damron's article link,

He cared only about a song’s underlying mathematical structure. “If you go back to the popular melodies written by Beethoven and Mozart three hundred years ago,” he went on, “they conform to the same mathematical patterns that we are looking at today. What sounded like a beautiful melody to them sounds like a beautiful melody to us. What has changed is simply that we have come up with new styles and new instruments. Our brains are wired in a way—we assume—that keeps us coming back, again and again, to the same answers, the same pleasure centers.” ... “We think we’ve figured out how the brain works regarding musical taste,” McCready said.

I've heard that before. I don't believe him. This more or less assumes that the only "pleasure" patterns are comparable to Western classical music patterns. IMHO, nonsense - what they have is a formula predictor. This doesn't mean that other and radically different approaches wouldn't also work.

I think the part nobody is talking about is the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. If you live in the mainstream and the mainstream puts out only a narrow bandwidth of product, that's what most people will buy. This makes the supply chain real simple.

Simple supply chain ^ mainstream people see no other real choice => big profits.

Works for a lot of businesses these days. IMHO.

[Clyde Mattocks]

Exactly!

[Richard Damron]

Dave -

This thread has nothing to do with Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Joe Shmoe or mathematics in music. There is room for debate there. What is not debatable is the fact that some have developed a technique for ensuring that the crap that is promoted today will be perpetuated and become the crap of tomorrow. That technique, by whatever name, answers at least a part of Joe D's query. How ensconed within the industry is that technique? I don't have the foggiest. What is clear, however, is that the claimed success rate may guarantee widespread use and inundate us with "formula" performances ad nauseum. Joe's question will then be answered in toto.

Richard

[Dave Mudgett]

Richard - I didn't link to that article, you did. I will continue to feel free to comment on anything brought into a discussion like that.

The article principal claims “We think we’ve figured out how the brain works regarding musical taste”, and as a result, only the things that fit their formula will be hits. I think that is nonsense.

This has to do with correlation vs. cause-and-effect. They are claiming that their mathematical predictor is the cause of these songs being hits, and that this is a valid reason why more diverse music should not be commercialized. I think this is self-serving pseudo-science at its worst.

My point was that - IMHO - the reason for sameness is that media companies want it that way, for purely business reasons. IMO, it has absolutely nothing to do with "how the brain works regarding musical taste."

[Skeeter Stultz]

WHAT THE INDUSTRY NEEDS IS A FEW MORE ERNEST TUBB'S AND RAY PRICE'S. ALSO MORE OWEN BRADLEY'S AND DON LAW'S. ANOTHER PROBLEM IS JUST ABOUT THE SAME PLAYERS WORK THE MAJORITY OF THE SESSIONS. NASHVILLE HAS ALWAYS PLAYED IT SAFE, USE WHAT WORKS AND RIDE IT TILL SOMEBODY ELSE TURNS A LITTLE KNOB FOR JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT SOUND. I'VE TALKED TO SOME VERY GOOD PICKERS AND THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T BUY THIER WAY ON A SESSION.THE NASHVILLE MUSIC HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN A SLOW PROCESS OF PROGRESSION. NOT LIKE THE FIFTIES WHEN BIG E HIT TOWN. I REMEMBER THE WHOLE TOWN WAS ALL OVER HIM AND FOR GOOD REASON AS ALWAYS JUST ANOTHER IDEA AND OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.