It's Official: All Pop Music is Loud and Sounds the Same

[admin]

According to a report on Reuters, our original take on the shrinking Dynamic Range was spot on. Scientists in Spain were able to more or less use a database of the past 50 years of music to "prove" that modern pop music really is louder and, yes, it does in fact all sound the same. The researchers used a huge music archive called the Million Song Dataset to compare the last 50 years of music. It's a database that actually catalogues and analyzes audio and lyrics into numbers that can be crunched. The database is filled with pop songs dating all the way back to 1955 and is current up to 2010, which is apparently when all of the scientists committed ritual suicide after listening to one too many Lady Gaga remixes...

Discuss "It's Official: All Pop Music is Loud and Sounds the Same" here. Read the article.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Awesome article!

 

[woofersus]

Fantastic!

 

[Irvrobinson]

This had to be studied? What's next, are TV commercials really as loud as they seem?

 

[gmichael]

This had to be studied? What's next, are TV commercials really as loud as they seem?

Politicians are greedy.

 

[majorloser]

Awesome, we finally scientifically proved that pop music sucks!!!!

 

[TLS Guy]

Awesome, we finally scientifically proved that pop music sucks!!!!

My long held opinion backed up! I don't think it required science, but it's nice to have the proof.

 

[Adam]

I think that the only thing scientifically proven by this is that some of you guys are old.

 

[majorloser]

I think that the only thing scientifically proven by this is that some of you guys are old.

Old pop sucks, too.

 

[Adam]

Old pop sucks, too.

I hear ya. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles...

 

[AverageJoe]

I hear ya. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles...

Well... Two out of three suck, anyway (I'm not sayin' which one doesn't ).

 

[TLS Guy]

I think that the only thing scientifically proven by this is that some of you guys are old.

Yes, older and wiser!

 

[SaviorMachine]

Narrow dynamic range is a characteristic of pop music... in my opinion, this is an uncontroversial statement and, in itself, doesn't give much cause for value judgment, whatever position some folks hold on the "loudness war."

I think it's much more significant that melodic diversity is vanishing. To my mind, melody and structure are more central to artistic expression in music of every genre; when sameyness takes root, it's a sign, to me, that the genre is dying. Luckily, there's always a new generation of kids to eat up whatever puke the Lady Gagas of the world just tossed out. So it's dying but on really effective life support

 

[vqworks]

Although pop music generally has a narrow dynamic range, the current crop of pop music underwent severe limiting. There really is quite an audible difference between current pop and pop music within the past 30+ years. Back in the 80s up to the early 90s, you can find pop music with average volumes that were relatively low with very dramatic transient peaks so the percussion sounded very punchy. There is none of that now. Ironically, you'll hear more dynamic range from an old pre-recorded cassette compared to the average digital download. In fact, if you compare the dynamic range from old and carefully made (calibrated for bias and level) homemade cassettes using noise reduction, there isn't even a comparison. Of course, the cassette format is an unfashionable and forgotten dinosaur.

But there is no question that melodic arrangement and structure are dying. When was the last time you've heard a melodic bridge. The last time I can remember was the 80s. Now you have a few repetitive notes and nearly all new pop artists sing with the same lingo, accent and voice. It's all very simple and disposable.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I think it's telling that my children, who are in their middle 20s, prefer classic rock.

 

[gmichael]

Originally Posted by Adam
I hear ya. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles...

Well... Two out of three suck, anyway (I'm not sayin' which one doesn't ).

But but...

How many out of four?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Originally Posted by Adam
I hear ya. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles...


But but...

How many out of four?

Old people cant count either.

 

[lsiberian]

Music changes all the time. In 10 years they will be listening to something different that I think is devil music.

There are plenty of good musicians and songs being recorded. Everyone likes different flavors, but with modern technology anyone can record anyone anywhere.

There were plenty of bad songs recorded in the 60s and 70s too. We just forgot them and remember the amazing ones.

 

[Midwesthonky]

There were plenty of bad songs recorded in the 60s and 70s too. We just forgot them and remember the amazing ones.

Wife and I were driving home from church a couple of weeks ago and stumbled upon Kasey Kasum (sp?) doing the top 40 Disco hits. Yep, there was plenty of crap even back then.

With all the multi-media out there, it's about a look and "splash" to sell records and less about the music. Heck, remember the Buggles and their song "TV Killed the Radio Star"?

Looks good, but can't sing for...

 

[maverick11359]

Its not the content its the quality

you guys are missing the point ! I totally agree with the report findings .One of my examples is just recently I purchased a new Cd . A new release 2012 "Tuskegee"CD by Lionel Ritchie and compared it to the Commodores Greatest Hits CD form 1979 with some of Lionel's same songs . The quality of the originals are so superior to listen too it makes the new Tuskegee CD sound dreadful .My wife asked me to turn Tuskegee off because it hurt her ears....Today's music could sound great only if the new generation of music engineers learnt from their predecessors .Not every instrument and voice on a CD is to be played back at the same level