More Damning Evidence Of Today's Pop Music

[landtuna]

Also there is many pop music that gets good ratings from music critics, so to say "it's crap nowadays" just isn't true, and from hearing CHR music from almost every decade...there's plenty of "crap."

If you use similar criteria as do your critics and you both agree a certain song, decade, genre, era is not junk then so be it. For reasons I illustrated in another post I put no credence in critics. I will consider other opinions but I do not depend upon them.

I will agree that every era has its poor music when compared with the general music population. However, my point was directed at comparing entire eras and enough of my peers (as well as younger people who seemingly have no axe to grind) seem to agree that popular music in general today isn't near the quality of that past, however you define it. Most of the groups you mentioned were, BTW, more current than that I was discussing. "Bohemian Rhapsody" will be perhaps the single song from that assortment to have longevity years from now and even that could be considered a light novelty song.

 

[davideduardo]

We all know, courtesy of K.M. and DE, that music radio is totally dependent upon the agency biz so old music, by definition, will not advertise well so it isn't played.

No, stations are not "totally dependent" on agency business and we did not say that. But agency billing is a critical component of total revenue in the larger markets and without it a station with a decent facility can not generally be profitable (the lesser facilities have to look to niche markets and a different revenue model).

The percentage of agency business can range from a lower amount in let's say market 125 to the majority of business in a Top 10 market. I was once Sales Manager in market 15 and 95% of our business came from agencies because our rates were too high for nearly any local direct account.

But even stations that don't depend on much agency business and that do depend on direct accounts will find that if the advertiser discovers that most of the customers you attract are strongly on the senior side, you won't get many renewals unless the merchant sells stair lifts and such.

 

[TheBigA]

I've found that critics are merely people too and have found a way to make a living writing opinions. They tend to know a lot more than the average person on the street (like me) about the musicians, music genres and manufacture but in the end it comes down to "do you like it or not?" and to that question they are useless.

But you're attempting to turn your opinion and those who you agree with into some kind of general pronouncement about today's music. Just because you and those you agree with feel a certain way doesn't make it true. It just means you all agree. You could all agree that the sky is green. If you simply couched your opinion as such, no one would take issue. But you're trying to say your opinion is more important than those of anyone else. Sorry, you don't have the credibility to make that statement.

Today's music will sit in context with the current music of 2056. Perhaps looking back from that vantage point, the music of today will be far more palatable then it is now. Wine & whiskey tastes better after its had some time to age.

 

[landtuna]

But you're attempting to turn your opinion and those who you agree with into some kind of general pronouncement about today's music. Just because you and those you agree with feel a certain way doesn't make it true. It just means you all agree. You could all agree that the sky is green. If you simply couched your opinion as such, no one would take issue. But you're trying to say your opinion is more important than those of anyone else. Sorry, you don't have the credibility to make that statement.

We all agree because we all agree. My only point in posting was that there are other folks who share my opinion. That's it. It doesn't make any difference to me that anyone else likes or dislikes the music I like and I realize I have been in a minority for a long time. The economics that determine why my music isn't played as much on the radio are not going to change so I make other arrangements or find those few stations that still cater to me.

Today's music will sit in context with the current music of 2056. Perhaps looking back from that vantage point, the music of today will be far more palatable then it is now. Wine & whiskey tastes better after its had some time to age.

Only if you like wine and whiskey. Otherwise it matters not. Sometimes time just makes things sour.

 

[TheBigA]

It doesn't make any difference to me that anyone else likes or dislikes the music I like

Sure it does. That's why you started this thread. You're using one article to justify your opinion.

Yet you're quick to dismiss the opinions of a well established critic because he doesn't share your opinion about Sinatra. That's like dismissing all of the Beatles music because of one song. Or dismissing an entire generation of pop music because the examples you've heard don't suit your taste.

 

[semoochie]

You applied the wrong context to my statement. You said,
"Take away the video from modern pop music and you have nothing. Squat. Noise. Some people are satisfied with that but how many of them will be listening 30, 40, 50 years from now? My generation still does."

How often was that song, or anything else released in 1938, played on radio in 1988? Outside of Dr. Demento, my guess is "rarely or never," even on Adult Standards stations. There aren't as many songs from 1966 aired today as there were even 10 years ago, but there are some. Not in anything resembling heavy rotation, of course, but they do air on Classic Rock and the remaining Oldies stations.

Who are "They"? Certainly no one I ever spoke with (and yes, I was alive and viable 50 years ago).

I was comparing older people now with older people then and saying that people said the same thing then that you're saying now. I used an example of a totally forgotten song from 1938 to make a point.

 

[landtuna]

Sure it does. That's why you started this thread. You're using one article to justify your opinion.

I started this thread to illustrate that there are others who agree with those of us who believe today's music isn't as good as in years past. Simple as that. You, and others, use outside justification to illustrate your opinions. I am just doing the same, even though it is very unlikely to change anyone's mind.

Yet you're quick to dismiss the opinions of a well established critic because he doesn't share your opinion about Sinatra. That's like dismissing all of the Beatles music because of one song. Or dismissing an entire generation of pop music because the examples you've heard don't suit your taste.

Established critic? That guy has had more jobs than the Kardashian family. And about as professional.

The Beatles produced hundreds of pieces of music in several very different genres. They incorporated instruments in pop/rock music that had never been used before and even inspired culture changes outside their music environment. Sinatra's music was essentially the same song over and over and over again. A voice that couldn't quite hit the right key covered by a big band sound that tended to cover it up. That formula never changed. If Sinatra had been born a Norwegian in Minot, ND no one would have ever heard of him but he became the poster boy for Noo Yawk and Noo Joisey and his fame is pretty much still located there (and as proof, walk into any men's barber shop in those two states and tell me what photo you see on their wall). Any music 'critic' who doesn't see the shortcomings in Sinatra is unqualified to judge singers. Sinatra was a decent actor but he was otherwise a poseur. A little man fond of starting fights which required his bodyguards to finish. His mob connections. His drunken escapades with the Rat Pack. The first American teen idol who parlayed that into a lifetime of mediocre performing. I could go on and on but you get the idea.

 

[landtuna]

I was comparing older people now with older people then and saying that people said the same thing then that you're saying now. I used an example of a totally forgotten song from 1938 to make a point.

The reason older people then didn't say the same thing is because music in general was improving - both in genre and technology. There were musicians who railed against certain new types of music (Mitch Miller is legendary for his anti-rock rants) but most older people either tolerated the new stuff or were too polite to criticize it.

 

[firepoint525]

You are correct, however, the argument was that the song was an old folk song and not a modern novelty song.

Doesn't matter. The song was a hit (twice) in the 20th century, so it is acceptable for this discussion.

 

[TheBigA]

I started this thread to illustrate that there are others who agree with those of us who believe today's music isn't as good as in years past.

This isn't a music board. You started it in a national radio board. Why did you place a music thread on a radio board? In point of fact, radio stations are going to play popular music regardless of your personal opinion, or of opinions of bloggers. It's popular, it attracts an audience, and that audience can be sold to advertisers. So posting your opinion about the music is irrelevant to this board.

Established critic? That guy has had more jobs than the Kardashian family. And about as professional.

For 37 years, he was Chief Music Critic and Senior Editor for the Village Voice. He's also covered music for numerous other publications. That may explain why he has a lot of jobs. But he has earned his living principally as a writer, journalist, and college arts instructor. I don't understand your comparison to a reality TV family. Other than you don't like him or them.

The Beatles produced hundreds of pieces of music in several very different genres. They incorporated instruments in pop/rock music that had never been used before and even inspired culture changes outside their music environment. Sinatra's music was essentially the same song over and over and over again.

Bottom line: You like the Beatles, you don't like Sinatra. But you're not using the same criteria. You have no credibility to make judgments about someone else's music, other than you either like it or you don't. No one has ever paid you for your opinion, and it has never been quoted by a reputable source. Correct? Then you're opinion is no more credible than anyone else's.

 

[semoochie]

The reason older people then didn't say the same thing is because music in general was improving - both in genre and technology. There were musicians who railed against certain new types of music (Mitch Miller is legendary for his anti-rock rants) but most older people either tolerated the new stuff or were too polite to criticize it.

Apparently, we have different takes on what happened. Here's an example of what I was talking about, which seemed to be the prevailing feeling of the country well into the 1960s: https://www.google.com/search?q=roc...ome..69i57.15667j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[landtuna]

This isn't a music board. You started it in a national radio board. Why did you place a music thread on a radio board? In point of fact, radio stations are going to play popular music regardless of your personal opinion, or of opinions of bloggers. It's popular, it attracts an audience, and that audience can be sold to advertisers. So posting your opinion about the music is irrelevant to this board.

You continue to ignore my earlier response. I posted this thread simply to illustrate that there are others who agree with me on the current quality of popular music. That's it. Music radio is a big part of radio in general - perhaps the overall largest single usage of radio - so it is both appropriate and has been referenced thousands of times by other posters. I have not advocated that radio change its offerings nor did I even repeat my position (until challenged). It was simply proof that I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.

For 37 years, he was Chief Music Critic and Senior Editor for the Village Voice. He's also covered music for numerous other publications. That may explain why he has a lot of jobs. But he has earned his living principally as a writer, journalist, and college arts instructor.

I have read the Village Voice and agree with some of their stuff and disagree with others - much like any other rag. I do not think they are the definitive experts on music but rather simply another reference. Since music, of any genre, is impressionable in different ways to different people it is probably an impossible task for any one person to critique. I would be interested in his reasoning why he thinks Sinatra is the "greatest singer of the 20th century" but then again.....I really don't care. He has no chance of convincing me otherwise.

I don't understand your comparison to a reality TV family. Other than you don't like him or them.

Simple, they are all irrelevant. Taking up the planet's oxygen without making any worthwhile contribution.

Bottom line: You like the Beatles, you don't like Sinatra.

I do not like everything the Beatles did but I do think they were far more productive musicians than Frankie (who did not write nor arrange his own stuff and was always backed by a large professional band/orchestra). Hat makers must have loved him though.

But you're not using the same criteria. You have no credibility to make judgments about someone else's music, other than you either like it or you don't. No one has ever paid you for your opinion, and it has never been quoted by a reputable source. Correct? Then you're opinion is no more credible than anyone else's.

I gave you my criteria. Whether you accept it or not doesn't matter.

 

[frankberry]

Just my opinion ............

Frank Sinatra may not have written his music but his vocal interpretation of the music was spectacular.

 

[TheBigA]

It was simply proof that I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.

No one ever said you were, and having an opinion doesn't need proof unless you have another motivation. So either you want to change the minds of others, or you're insecure in your opinion. In either case I don't care.

You posted your proof, but are unwilling to accept the proof from others. My mentioning the name of established critic was not to put him in the position of changing your mind. We already know that's useless. It was simply to show there are other contrasting opinions from established and credible people of your generation. All you have to do is treat that post with the same respect you seem to want for your own. But instead you're choosing to attack a critic because you don't like one artist he likes, and then go on attacking that one artist for a number of reasons.

If other opinions don't matter, consider this subject closed.

 

[landtuna]

Apparently, we have different takes on what happened. Here's an example of what I was talking about, which seemed to be the prevailing feeling of the country well into the 1960s: https://www.google.com/search?q=roc...ome..69i57.15667j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I actually lived though the period you reference and was an impressionable teenager through most of it. During that time when teens got together, usually at someone's home or at a school dance, we played the popular music of the day. I remember not one time did the parents of the day object or make negative comments. In fact, at a family dinner my grandmother and her sister actually wanted my sister and I to give them a sample of the music and dancing of the day (late 50's). Their only comment was that it didn't seem to be that much different (the dancing) from that popular when they were younger.

I have no idea what the idiot on KWK was trying to say on his rant because he didn't finish it. Every Top-40 station I am aware of used either some external company to sample popular music or they did it as he described by asking stores what was selling or what was requested on the stations themselves. I still have a collection of Hooper & Pulse surveys from the very early 60's that KTKT used. David Edwardo has previously listed other sources used by radio back then.

And BTW, the song the idiot DJ was playing in the video was not a Rock n Roll song. It was the Dell Vikings' Whispering Bells - a Doo Wop song from a Doo Wop group.

Pop music took a major turn in the early 60's from what it had been in the latter half of the 50's. The TV and radio payola scandals put the kabosh on a number of popular groups with the result that girl groups became popular and a quieter, more traditional, form of music seemed to prevail. Then came the British Invasion, the Vietnam Protest music, heavy metal and so on. There were a number of industry and political people who didn't like the new music and felt it was unpatriotic or otherwise leading our youth into drugs and counter culture, or, a Communist plot. Most of these people were simply unable to adapt to the new music or were complete idiots (reference Richard Nixon and his VP Spiro Agnew) and could not accept culture change.

The 60's were a time of great upheaval and change in the USA, politically, culturally, economically and morally. The music tended to reflect those changes and became a lightning rod for both support and opposition to those changes.

As has been stated many times before - you had to live through the 60's to properly understand it.

 

[landtuna]

In either case I don't care.

Then the best thing you could do for yourself is don't bother responding to me.

You posted your proof, but are unwilling to accept the proof from others.

I posted my opinion and criteria, not "proof". There is no "proof" in an emotional subject such as music or art.

It was simply to show there are other contrasting opinions from established and credible people of your generation.

Christgau may be of my age but he is not of my culture or generation. The entire population of Noo Yawk loves Sinatra but that matters not one whit to me. I think he was a hack and the "proof" is there for all to see. You believe or you don't.

All you have to do is treat that post with the same respect you seem to want for your own. But instead you're choosing to attack a critic because you don't like one artist he likes, and then go on attacking that one artist for a number of reasons.

I did not "attack" either the critic or the singer. I simply stated why I either don't consider them an expert on the subject or a performer of note. In the case of Sinatra his personal life wasn't a thing of beauty and the news articles are available to anyone who is interested. You can argue about his singing credentials but his personal behavior was deplorable.

 

[davideduardo]

I have no idea what the idiot on KWK was trying to say on his rant because he didn't finish it. Every Top-40 station I am aware of used either some external company to sample popular music or they did it as he described by asking stores what was selling or what was requested on the stations themselves. I still have a collection of Hooper & Pulse surveys from the very early 60's that KTKT used. David Edwardo has previously listed other sources used by radio back then.

Hooper and Pulse did not survey music.

Hooper and Pulse "surveyed" (what we would call "measured") radio audience sizes.

When a station said "Hooper Surveyed #1" they meant that they had more listeners than any other station.

Hooper and Pulse never, ever measured music sales or preference at the song level.

 

[frankberry]

Landtuna,

You have attacked both the critic and the singer.
Please respect the opinions of others.

Frank

 

[davideduardo]

As has been stated many times before - you had to live through the 60's to properly understand it

The biggest protests and objections to "rock & roll" came in the mid 50's.

In the South, the protests were as much racist rants as against the rhythm of the songs. So that is a separate dimension.

But nationally, religious and self-proclaimed moral and civic groups protested that the music was the devil's doing and destroying the morals of teenagers and children.

Such protests are the reason Ed Sullivan's presentation of Elvis showed him from the waist up.

 

[davideduardo]

Pop music took a major turn in the early 60's from what it had been in the latter half of the 50's. The TV and radio payola scandals put the kabosh on a number of popular groups with the result that girl groups became popular and a quieter, more traditional, form of music seemed to prevail.

Since there was no "rock 'n roll" in the first half of the 50's**, we are talking about the period between "Rock Around the Clock" to the turn of the decade.

The payola investigation of late 1959 revealed that for years* it had been a standard practice to accept "fees" for playing records. Many smaller and some large labels based all their promotional activities on the giving of incentives.

As a result of the hearings, such practices were brought into the scope of commercial bribery and one disk jockey, the abrasive Alan Freed, was indicted because he refused to sign the House Oversight Committee affidavit presented to all the jocks who testified.

As a result of payola being criminalized those radio stations that did not have tight playlists started telling the jocks what to play and even in what sequence. DJ choice was minimized or eliminated at most stations. The record companies had to focus on songs that could be promoted without the exchange of favors. At the same time, the initial novelty of rockin' and rollin' artists like Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Coasters and Chuck Berry was wearing thin (accelerated by the legal issues, arrests and such surrounding some of the superstars). The death of Buddy Holly on The Day the Music Died was a harbinger of was to come... a shift towards softer and more romantic songs.

The Shirelles and The Crystals were already formed before the payola hearings in November of 1959. There had already been a change in music tastes as a review of the top songs of 1959 would reveal. It wasn't payola per se that changed music... it was the need for more variety. Couple with that the lessening popularity of the old-style MOR artists who had been on the charts along with the rockers... singers like Perry Como for example... and there was an opportunity for the girl groups and stars like Bobby Vee, Frankie Avalon, Connie Francis and the Fleetwoods to prosper and develop and renewed interest in the style of Neil Sedaka and Paul Anka. Blaming payola for a shift in market taste is disingenuous.

* Going back to the era of sheet music.
** Although the roots extended back considerably earlier, the term was not in use.