Researchers find pop music is too loud and all sounds the same

[landtuna]

Just as I've been saying. The music died in 1983.

"Comforting news for anyone over the age of 35, scientists have worked out that modern pop music really is louder and does all sound the same."

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/26/12973700-researchers-find-pop-music-is-too-loud-and-all-sounds-the-same?lite

I'll go a bit further and say modern pop is just......junk.

 

[justpassingthough]

I can't speak to the study, but the article doesn't mention what is encompassed by "modern pop music". Sure, if you put Rihanna, Katy Perry, Ke$ha, etc in a blender- they would all sound loud and the same, assuming "modern pop music" means stuff largely played on CHR stations today. If they actually measured across all genres, then I think this study may have merit. Otherwise, I think its just old people complaining about "that damn new rock and roll music".

Also, this study is flawed because it discounts the one thing that can't be measured by algorithms and is probably the most important thing in terms of music, the human experience. If the algorithms can account for the emotional and physical state of human beings when they hear songs, and somehow measure subjectiveness (which, of course, isn't quantifiable) than this study would actually have a purpose.

You're just looking for a study to vindicate your own taste in music.

 

[landtuna]

I can't speak to the study, but the article doesn't mention what is encompassed by "modern pop music". Sure, if you put Rihanna, Katy Perry, Ke$ha, etc in a blender- they would all sound loud and the same, assuming "modern pop music" means stuff largely played on CHR stations today. If they actually measured across all genres, then I think this study may have merit. Otherwise, I think its just old people complaining about "that damn new rock and roll music".

I was fully expecting a response like this but to clarify....

The study measured "pop" music, not music in general and not other genres. That should be self-explanatory. Personally, I think Country has suffered the same fate although I am not a big fan or well-educated in Country history. I do know there was a time I really liked Country but the new singers and new songs do not appeal to me at all.

There was no indication this study was conducted or for the benefit of "old people" who most probably were not considered at all due to marketing reasons. We' re the Great Unwashed, remember?

Also, this study is flawed because it discounts the one thing that can't be measured by algorithms and is probably the most important thing in terms of music, the human experience. If the algorithms can account for the emotional and physical state of human beings when they hear songs, and somehow measure subjectiveness (which, of course, isn't quantifiable) than this study would actually have a purpose.

You have completely missed the study objective. It was not to measure anything but the physical characteristics of the music itself without emotional ties to listeners. If you actual read the study results you would notice it dwells on the several major aspects of sound and rates them as far as each fits the pop genre.

You're just looking for a study to vindicate your own taste in music.

I don't need to "vindicate" (did you actually mean "validate") my personal music taste. Music is a personal opinion and everybody has their own. But this is not an opinion or an emotional measurement but rather a scientific measurement of the music itself. To dismiss it as justification for an opinion is not to understand what was done.

 

[justpassingthough]

"Vindicate" works in this case as it affords justification for your argument using evidence. Semantics aside, though, maybe I'm just completely unaware of why anyone would bother studying something that is so subjective at its heart. Can we commission a study on various periods of art next? I've never cared for the Impressionists much, but I'm sure a study could tell me that the skill used by some Impressionists makes their work better than Cubists.

What I do agree with you on is that this study would probably translate across genres and the results would likely be replicated. I don't think that truly speaks to music, though. Bob Dylan can't be understood by the human ear, but he still has droves of fans. There is no algorithm in the world that can explain the underlying effects of music.

 

[landtuna]

"Vindicate" works in this case as it affords justification for your argument using evidence.

I have never been accused of bias towards modern pop music therefore "vindicate" is not appropriate.

Additionally, I posed no "argument", just referenced a scientific study which agreed with my opinion (and that of many others).

Semantics aside, though, maybe I'm just completely unaware of why anyone would bother studying something that is so subjective at its heart.

Yes, music is subjective but no, this study was not. It measured average sound over 1.5 generations and applied its findings to musical standards. I'm thinking you may want to talk to an audio engineer to understand what was accomplished.

Can we commission a study on various periods of art next? I've never cared for the Impressionists much, but I'm sure a study could tell me that the skill used by some Impressionists makes their work better than Cubists.

Ah....the time-honored deflection. Art is solely subjective unless your critique is based on the proper use of art materials themselves.

What I do agree with you on is that this study would probably translate across genres and the results would likely be replicated. I don't think that truly speaks to music, though. Bob Dylan can't be understood by the human ear, but he still has droves of fans.

Personally, one of my very favorite albums is "Nashville Skyline" by Dylan in the late 60's. He is easily understood on every song in that album. I am not so fond of some of his other works and for the very reason you mention.

It would be interesting to measure the Classical genre because the very nature of the genre is unchanging. Likewise Bluegrass and organ church music.

There is no algorithm in the world that can explain the underlying effects of music.

Music, no. Sound, yes. This was a study of sound as used in the pop music genre.

 

[justpassingthough]

You opened this thread with the statement "Just as I've been saying. The music died in 1983." That sounds like an argument to me, since there is no standard and assumed rule. The bias against modern pop music is inherent.

 

[landtuna]

You opened this thread with the statement "Just as I've been saying. The music died in 1983." That sounds like an argument to me, since there is no standard and assumed rule. The bias against modern pop music is inherent.

My statement was an opinion. I gave no personal arguments as to why I felt this way. Others on the forum have also stated their opinions and they vary widely. If opinions are biases then I am guilty. I am however pleased that someone in the scientific community agrees with my opinion.

 

[landtuna]

The bias against modern pop music is inherent.

And the following by John Mellencamp might provide another clue as to why I feel the way I do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html

 

[justpassingthough]

I guess it's easy to wax poetic on what is wrong with the music industry after you've already taken your millions out of it and started a career under an assumed name, because it's what the label wanted. Perhaps Mitt Romney can give me a lecture on why I'm poor later.

 

[landtuna]

I guess it's easy to wax poetic on what is wrong with the music industry after you've already taken your millions out of it and started a career under an assumed name, because it's what the label wanted. Perhaps Mitt Romney can give me a lecture on why I'm poor later.

I believe Mellencamp's essay was on what went wrong rather than what is wrong. But I may be wrong. ;D

 

[anthonydt06]

Music sounds the same since most of the pop songs you hear are produced by a few of the same hollywood producers, and it sells. They don't really care about the quality of the product as much as they do the bottom line.

 

[landtuna]

Music sounds the same since most of the pop songs you hear are produced by a few of the same hollywood producers, and it sells. They don't really care about the quality of the product as much as they do the bottom line.

It's always been about the bottom line but now there is technology to supplant the lack of talent.

 

[Darth_vader]

*cough cough*Autotune*cough*

 

[atlantaboy]

There's plenty of new music that doesn't "sound the same" - Clear Channel just won't play most of it, and therefore it's not considered "pop" (The Lumineers, for example, are currently #27 on ITunes, just off Alternative play)

Don't understand the loudness thing - if you turn Rihanna up to Volume 30 on your car stereo, it's just as loud as turning the Rolling Stones up to Volume 30 - is this article trying to prove that people LISTEN to modern pop music at louder volumes? ???

 

[landtuna]

There's plenty of new music that doesn't "sound the same" - Clear Channel just won't play most of it, and therefore it's not considered "pop" (The Lumineers, for example, are currently #27 on ITunes, just off Alternative play)

The testing was done on "pop" music so unless there are Alternative songs also considered pop they may not have been tested.

Don't understand the loudness thing - if you turn Rihanna up to Volume 30 on your car stereo, it's just as loud as turning the Rolling Stones up to Volume 30 - is this article trying to prove that people LISTEN to modern pop music at louder volumes? ???

How could you possibly test LISTENING sound levels without measuring it at the listeners ears? No, the tests were directed at the recorded levels. It is a time honored tactic of advertisers to boost the emphasis of a recording so make it sound louder without actually turning up the volume. I believe that is what they addressed.

 

[atlantaboy]

There's plenty of new music that doesn't "sound the same" - Clear Channel just won't play most of it, and therefore it's not considered "pop" (The Lumineers, for example, are currently #27 on ITunes, just off Alternative play)

The testing was done on "pop" music so unless there are Alternative songs also considered pop they may not have been tested.

That's the whole point - the reason most Alternative songs in 2012 aren't considered "pop" is because corporate pop radio won't play them, regardless of how popular they are/how much sales potential they show

"Pop" music, in term, sounds the same, because anything that sounds different is relegated to Alternative radio

 

[atlantaboy]

It is a time honored tactic of advertisers to boost the emphasis of a recording so make it sound louder without actually turning up the volume. I believe that is what they addressed.

This makes no sense to me - if this were true, changing your car radio from CHR to Classic Rock would result in a lowering of the volume of the sound...

 

[landtuna]

That's the whole point - the reason most Alternative songs in 2012 aren't considered "pop" is because corporate pop radio won't play them, regardless of how popular they are/how much sales potential they show

"Pop" music, in term, sounds the same, because anything that sounds different is relegated to Alternative radio

I suggest you contact the study owners and ask them that question. I am not a big fan of categorizing popular music to fit the station image. Rather, the station should play the music their listeners want to hear.

 

[landtuna]

It is a time honored tactic of advertisers to boost the emphasis of a recording so make it sound louder without actually turning up the volume. I believe that is what they addressed.

This makes no sense to me - if this were true, changing your car radio from CHR to Classic Rock would result in a lowering of the volume of the sound...

You ever listen to a US-based AM music station then punch over to one south of the border? Suddenly you will find much more emphasis, reverb and other "noise". The volume won't change but the effect on your ears will.

 

[carolinaradio]

There's plenty of new music that doesn't "sound the same" - Clear Channel just won't play most of it, and therefore it's not considered "pop" (The Lumineers, for example, are currently #27 on ITunes, just off Alternative play)

Don't understand the loudness thing - if you turn Rihanna up to Volume 30 on your car stereo, it's just as loud as turning the Rolling Stones up to Volume 30 - is this article trying to prove that people LISTEN to modern pop music at louder volumes? ???

I don't think it's fair to count Clear Channel as the only one not playing certain genres/artists - I don't hear Cumulus, and certainly not CBS jumping on anything "different"...

In fact, I listen Channel 96.1 in Charlotte daily and they aren't afraid to step outside of the rhythmic pop genre that dominates the CHR charts. They added the latest from Fun., Matchbox 20, and Train quickly, just an example. Fortunate to get them well here as my hometown CHR (B-93.7) is a little more rhythmic and continues to be slow and dull (seriously, "Boyfriend" in power rotation while nearly ignoring Ellie Goulding?).