Is Pop Music Holding You Hostage? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Love or hate pop music, it's pretty hard to escape. From Katy Perry to Lady Gaga, pop songs are recorded, packaged, and sold down a well worn pipeline, designed to make you, the listener, LOVE THIS SONG! But do you really? Does the song have real meaning, or is it just that they play it over and over and over and over again until it wears you down, until you can nothing but... sing along. So is pop music holding you hostage? Watch the episode to find out!
Further Reading on Payola:
Change that Tune - FoM - bit.ly/1aFkCiG
How to Get Your Song on Commercial Radio - TuneCore - bit.ly/1aFkGij
Of Music, Payola and Disclosure - Bloomberg - bloom.bg/1aFkFLk
How Payola Works Today - Techdirt - bit.ly/1aFkIH9
The Long Road to Desuetude for Payola Laws: Recognizing the Inevitable Commodification of Tastemaking. Krystal Conway, Seton Hall University School of Law, Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 2006
Alan Freed Still Casts a Long Shadow: The Persistence of Payola and the Ambiguous Value of Music. Charles Fairchild, Media Culture and Society 2012 34: 328
Neil Gaiman blog post: bit.ly/1aFkvDM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tweet of the Week:
bit.ly/18trwHR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Music:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
Level 5: Room for the Homeless
bit.ly/10N0Ykm
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
Binaerpilot "Geeks"
bit.ly/10N0UBf
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
Outsider "Explore"
bit.ly/197EQnY
StatueofDiveo "Final Days"
bit.ly/GYljwI
Chiptune - Kenzalol
bit.ly/15vKwpN
EatMe
bit.ly/17ludvN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Come hang out in the Idea Channel IRC!
bit.ly/138EHBh
Check out the Idea Channel SubReddit!
bit.ly/GNklUq
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us know what sorts of crazy ideas you have, about this episode and otherwise:
Tweet at us! @pbsideachannel (yes, the longest twitter username ever)
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Idea Channel Facebook!
/ pbsideachannel
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
_______________________________
Want some more Idea Channel?
How is Seeing Enders Game a Political Action? • How is Seeing Enders G...
How is Slender Man Internet Folklore?
• How is Slender Man Int...
Controlling vs "Being" Your Video Game Avatar • Controlling vs "Being"...
Not all pop music is bad.
It's not bad *because* it's popular. But some songs are bad *and* popular and it's the reason a lot of people hate it.
I agree. ABBA and The Beatles were popular because they were good.
well guns and roses were THE most popular band 1985-1990. they were like on the cover of every single music / teen magazine. but that was all BEFORE. that was the time when most of the musicians were popular because they were good. they were writing their stuff.
today, we dont have musicians, we have PERFORMERS like beyonce and every other mainstream singer. they are not writing their stuff, they are just getting the songs from some writers
Lundvalnaden Guns and Roses were douchebags.
"But some songs are bad and popular and it's the reason a lot of people hate it."
Also the added bonus of said people not actually bothering to check for the songs that are good and popular.
So, let me get this straight. The Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson, etc. made a lot of pop music. Was their music really bad but loved purely because of how it was packaged and sold? Because it was well packaged and marketed. Do people still love the music these singers made simply because they heard it do damn much? Or did they make legitimately good music despite the fact it was aimed at the mainstream? There's often a tendency to say music is bad simply because it's modern but some of today's pop acts will be classic artists down the road and everyone will be singing their praises. Part of the reason is because a lot of the mediocre and bad popular music from the past is forgotten and the better music stands the test of time. So, people imagine music was better in the past when it really wasn't and dismiss all modern music just because it's modern. Listen to a replay of Casey Kasem's old countdowns and you'll hear how bad a lot of older music really was.
Many people don't know what pop music is and equate it with dance or electronic music. They don't realize a song like Eleanor Rigby is a pop song. Pop songs are catchy, have simple structures, and lyrics that are easily understood. So, Eleanor Rigby and Fancy are both pop. People who think they're above pop music often love it. They simply don't realize many of the songs they love are pop.
If you listen to an oldies station, you soon realize they produced just as much crap back in the day as they do today.
***** Yeah, I hardly think it's fair to compare the beatles, and band which literally revolutionized modern music, to katy perry. That's not to say others are better or worse, but the level of song writing in beatles songs is god tier. Whether you like the songs or not, they are technically brilliant. And I think that's what separates them from some other types of pop music.
It doesn’t help either that the majority of the commenters are edgy rock fans who think they’re above pop music, not realizing that at least one of the songs they like falls in the pop category.
I personally do not listen to the radio, so I don't listen to pop music. I'm the kind of person who doesn't know why everyone is singing that song in the car. I like to select my music and listen to what I like, but it takes time. Most people don't pay attention, they listen to music in their car, it sounds good, they like it. Not everyone wants to put time and efforts into picking music, like not everyone wants to put time into gardening, fixing cars or reading books. I'd rather pick my music than play golf, but I'm pretty certain others would choose golf. Is it a bad thing? Meh. As long as people are happy. There is no "bad music", there is what you like and what you don't like. Some people like the complexity of jazz and others just want dubstep. Of course, you can decide not to buy into the industry and look for real artists, but we're back at the "efforts and time" argument.
Time and effort has nothing to do with the music people listen to.
The reality is that most people ARE pop songs, most people DON'T have logic thoughts in their minds.
Want proof? Go to a Q&A website, and ask basic questions, about the most mundane behavior, the majority of people can't give you an answer.
Ask the majority of soldiers to explain ANY war they're fighting?
Ask the majority of full-time workers to explain the economy?
@@losgryfog "The reality is that most people ARE pop songs, most people DON'T have logic thoughts in their minds."
What?
"Is Pop Music Holding You Hostage?"
**Presses play on Beethoven**
"No."
Maybe music isn't given value by being listened to by lots of people but by being associated with the right people - the star quality angle? A bit like clothes: the material value of a dress is pretty small but if the right designer or star is associated with it then it'll be worth a lot more. Most of the singles in the top 10 in the UK at the moment are already established artists: maybe it's not that they're played repeatedly but that they're made by artists we already look up to?
So the question then becomes how those artists get established in the first place.
This is why I listen to metal.
I appreciate some pop music. I don't try to judge a song by its popularity.
I cannot listen to pop music. In the car, I go straight to Pandora and decide between really old "rap" music (Sugarhill gang), classical (like mozard, vivaldi, even beethoven or bach), death metal (chop suey, avenged sevenfold), comedy (bo burnham mostly), classic rock (queen, beatles), etc (scissor sisters, lilly allen).
I am often with my friends and they put on pop music and it just drains life from me. It's always the same song but different words. There's always the same chord progressions and synthetic percussion... it's really sad.
I love all of these other genres because they're just more interesting.
Also, this: You're not an artist if you make millions of dollars by performing songs that people wrote just for you to perform. Justin Bieber is an example of this.
Okay. I listen to even Enya sometimes and compared to her, in my opinion, they seem to be
I feel the same way. Liiike how can you guys listen to this crud!?
waawamellon
Death Metal by definition requires scream or groan-like vocals or stressed vocal rythms. System Of A Down and Avenged Sevenfold are the pop music of Metal. And they are Heavy Metal. Some argue System Of A Down is thrash metal, but they're really too clean. No offense intended, just sharing some knowledge!
The Beatles were pop.
***** indeed they were
I haven't listened to pop music regularly in decades; my musical tastes moved away from it. As a result, I'm not being exposed as much to the music (not listening to pop radio, not watching shows that would use pop music, etc.) and there's little that I like on first listen. Is this the result of different musical tastes or a lack of exposure?
It might, too, be the lyrics. I might find a tune catchy, but the lyrics often do nothing for me. So many pop songs deal with topics that don't connect with me, such as dating. They speak to those younger than I.
Advertising and marketing work because they appeal to our emotions rather than our reason, they connect to our needs and wants, and the right frequency keeps us thinking about the product or service. It's a fine balance between successful saturation and over-saturation.
Music, maybe all art, might be the same. The emotional connection is important, but so is the frequency of exposure if the goal is sales.
Interesting point. My guess is that exposure and taste are both cause and effect for one another.
I actually want to point out that marketing appeals to your reasoning about as often as it appeals to your emotion. It just depends on the message the company is trying to send, and more importantly their target demographic.
I'm was in sales for a summer, and my sales pitch varied widely based on who I was talking to, and what I felt would work best on that individual.
With that in mind, the reason that it doesn't resonate with you might be hidden in the name "pop music" popular music, meaning it appeals to the majority, but not necessarily everyone.
With that in mind, I feel like lack of exposure is stronger, than lack of taste. Going back to the marketing example it takes an average of 12-15 exposures for an advertisement to work on someone. There's even an expected delay in marketing strategies and results planned into the process.
That snickers bar you swore off looks mighty tasty after you see over a dozen of them.
"Music, maybe all art, might be the same."
All art?
I listen to pop music from time to time. I won't dislike it simply because it's popular.
In my opinion art is anything made by person with expression being their #1 priority. If you are making something mainly for money then you are making a product and I dont think you can be both.
That's another point. If you take credit for someone elses work on your music then you're being dishonest.
So pythagoras and the othet people that discovered and created music where being disingenuous then
I love the symbolism in Gorillaz music videos in regards to pop music. The female guitarist of the fictional Gorillaz band, Noodle, hates pop music and is all about rock and shit. When she disappears, the bassist, Murdoc, creates a cyborg Noodle to replace the original. The cyborg Noodle however loves pop music. This is to symbolize that fans of pop music are robotic and without any mind of their own. Fuck pop.
Nice name.
Idiot
Meaning is created at the moment of consumption, not at the moment of conception. The evidence for that is the fact that different people perceive the same songs differently.
do you suggest that a composer who completes or conceives of a work has no meaning? Because I can list plenty of examples of music that contradict this statement.
*****
No theory in popular music is perfect, and I'm far from stating that Walter Benjamin has it all, but you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that what they get from a piece of music is what the author neccessairly intended.
Art is created for the purpose of communicating meaning through some variant or another. It depends on the composer how coherent and rigid their own interpretation of the content is in order to relate it to others, but ultimately, meaning from the consumer end is nowadays in general created at the moment of consumption.
In simpler terms - because the product and the consumer are detached (due to the advent of recording devices), all that is left to really communicate any meaning is the song itself. So in that sense, the consumer is the only one who creates meaning from the song they're experiencing, irregardless of the messages the producer intended.
Lewa500 I understand where you're coming from, but I would not consider katy perry an artist. She's more of a business woman.
Diego Mendiola
That is your opinion, but anyone who produces music, despite their underlying nature, is still an artist. A singer produces songs, which we generally define to be art, therefore they're an artist. Whether or not they use meaning-making for heavy commercial uses is up to them.
Lewa500 I'm not sure on the logic here. how do you arrive to that conclusion? do you consider marketing giants artists as well? I realize anyone could define to THEMSELVES anything as art. But do you really think katy perry's INTENT really is to create art and inspire new ideas? I think not because of massive marketing, SHE herself didn't create her "music" there is a whole orchestra of PR people and millionaire producers that are hired by the RECORD COMPANY to make her lustrous "music". I'm not sure that qualifies as an "artist"
I only listen to the radio when my sister's with me...and she always listens to pop or rap...And even though I hate it I always end up knowing the lyrics to the songs and mentally singing along to it. So yeah, I hate it but it always ends up getting stuck in my mind
i have the same fking problem, i feel as if pop is psychologically modified to enter the brain, and just invade it.
1l It is.
I just force people to turn the radio off lol
@@user46352 Wow, mood killer.
Even though American pop music is over corporatized crap I can still enjoy the pop music of other countries. Maybe this has to do with more of an emphasis on musical talent in other countries or perhaps the oversaturation of American pop music has made me look elsewhere for enjoyable music.
Trust me, you'll find the same balance anywhere, real music is everywhere and crap music is everywhere, it's not just the top level American pop that is crap. And not all of the top of the charts American music is crap either.
Yeah, especially the Canadian Drake and Justin Bieber, the Australian Janosokians. and the British One Direction and Asking Alexandria. Yeah fuck American music
But they wouldn't be a platform for those types of pop music without the US claiming the mantle first. See Britney Spears etc. etc.
Here's an idea: Has the use of smileys become so integrated into our culture that we have created new emotions in and of themselves? For example, on occasion I've wanted to do the XD or D: face in real life but realised there isn't quite a human equivalent of those emoticons. Although they were originally created to symbolise a human emotion, it's like they evolve into something similar but different to the emotion they represent.
XD is a cheesy grin - open mouthed and likely eyes narrowed, as compared to :D which is a normal big grin, teeth clenched. And D: is just like it looks. Drop your jaw and make an over-exagerated frown.
These are normal facial expressions. Well, sorta, they aren't expressions we make often, but you can find them especially in old-time movies where the actors had to overdo it.
You're welcome.
"Apple is the best thing ever" - "Miley Cyrus is awezome" - "Blizzard makes excellent games" - "Phone games with in app shops are the best"
Typical quotes from people who are brainwashed by advertisements on the internet, in movies... everywere.
Roberts K Well, with all due respect... Blizzard does make some pretty kickass games...
+Elliott Byrum all video games are shit and people who play them are degenerate nerds
your standard ponyfag You, know, with a name like "your standard ponyfag", it's hard to tell if you're being facecious or not. Either way, as a gamer, i must say...
Gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
Ha ha! That's good. It's also depressing. I saw a comment on RUclips recently from someone who said 'their life was complete' because Madonna sang a particular song on her new tour. I find that if I stick my head above the parapet and say things like 'Katy Perry is crap" or "Lady Gaga" is overrated, I get a lot of flack.
your standard ponyfag there's an annoying mosquito buzzing around...
American pop music is the most shallow form of "art" on the planet, right next to cheerleading. There is a whole world of great music that doesn't involve itself with this ridiculous scene.
WOAH WOAH WOAH
Why are you dissin' cheerleaders, bro?
Those two things aren't even similar.
***** Right? It's like comparing the value of post-modernist painting to football.
ye not feer its like comparing garbage to manure :((((
Can't say I listen to the radio voluntarily anymore. Whenever I do, it's because I'm in the car and whoever's with me NEEDS to listen to it NOW... and then it's mostly country music. In my own personal tastes, I've drifted into solely listening to the free, quality music of... well, RUclips in all it's covering, creative glory. In fact, I can say I have never heard Roar or Wrecking Ball all the way through to this day.
Pop music is very easy to escape from. Thankfully, you can start up pandora and get some truly good music from the past, which will create a "radio station for you." I say truly good, because let me explain a wacky thought to those who never had a CD player...
Vinyl records were very limited in space. Thus, the musicians were FORCED to make good songs. When you put on a record made in the late 60's and early 70's, and even the 80's, you won't skip songs like you do with CD players, MP3 players, etc. You're not forced to listen to a song, but the songs were all so good, you didn't have a reason to skip the song. In short, I believe many people around the age of 20 and under do not appreciate music because they can download software to make a dubstep song that sounds exactly like skrillex, or insert your favorite artist who used nothing more than a computer to make a song.
Led Zeppelin created some of their best albums by renting a house in the country, and partying like it was going out of style. If, all 4 of them felt the groove at 4 in the morning, they would sit down and start to iron out a song. It was a very detailed process and why good music, that has taken lots of effort and persistence to make, will long outlive pop, even though pop feels like it is the only thing around.
Can we keep the comment section free of people complaining about the new comment section please? We get it, it sucks.
"Pewdiepie is two doors down, on the left."
You tell'em, Whathisname from Idea channel. You send them on their way.
I do not listen to the radio AT ALL because I select the music I listen to. Radio is for the masses of sheep.
So edgy.
***** Enjoy your pretentious hipster fuckery.
I barely listen to the radio anyway.
*****
No, hipster because you find superiority in the music you listen to.
***** Err, no. It's pretentious when people feel high and mighty about themselves over the music they listen to. I'm agreeing with you that music on the radio is shit, but people who feel so edgy listening to music that doesn't suck are 10x more annoying. Nobody likes pretentious people.
Well what about genre specific radio like classic rock radio?
I literally do not listen to the radio....and havent for like 5 years...
Can we please get an Idea Channel episode on the new comment system and what our collective reaction to it says about us?
In the era of the internet, it might not be about getting people to like a piece of media thru Stockholm syndrome, but rather to memeify the piece and get it to self-reproduce.
My music teacher says that pop music is made for people who don't like music and I personally agree. The vast majority (95%) are just the incarnation of an impressionable, apathetic and anti-talented bunch of sychophantic art-o-phobics. Case closed!!!
PrinceCanute I agree, and I like your profile picture.
let's compare the good with the bad on this Google+ update shall we?
(this has nothing to do with the video)
The Good:
1. Being able to edit comments, in case of glaring typos
2. Being able to post lengthy opinions without multiple comments
3. Organizing replies to an easier and less confusing system
4. Making it easy to share things for those who actually use Google+
The Bad
1. Being forced to use a Service most of us have no intention of using
2. Google trying to force us to use our real names
3. Not being able to comment for a while, even with Google+ linked (luckily resolved for me but not others)
4. Massive loss of information for users, like subscriptions
5. Being notified for every like a comment of mine gets, on all my thousands of comments that I'm sure to post in the nest few weeks
6. Being notified when someone replies to a comment I replied to, even when it has nothing to do with me, filling my Bell with comments I couldn't care less about.
7. ASCII Penii everywhere
8. Links to viruses that can destroy computers with one curious click, especially bad to those who can't afford to replace their computer
9. Links to Screamers, Seizure Sites, Porn, and more for all out children to enjoy
10. These comments can be disguised as "Expand this comment" making avoiding them difficult to impossible, so this is sure to cause multiple Seizures and Destory Countless Hard Drives
11. Screen filling comments of utter pointlessness
12. People can now edit their comments and change the context of an argument to make you look like an asshole
13. Having to click "Allow" on my Noscript everytime I click the bell window no matter how many times I allow it
14. Disliking a comment does not show any dislikes so you can't dislike a comment effectively
15. Impersonation of Username and Avatar
16. Some people can't reply to comments
17. Top (usually first) comments getting all priority and attention and leaving newer comments mostly ignored unless people click the option themselves every video
18. The Ultimate Evil itself infecting RUclips, Fucking Hashtags, themselves worth multiple points
19. Hashtags
20. Hashtags
21. Hashtags
22. #FuckingHashtags
23. Clean and easy to use Inbox replaces by laggy, glitchy and convoluted Bell
24. Once again never asking for user opinion
25. And finally, abusing the fact that most of our favorite content providers are on RUclips and can't risk losing their income switching to someplace else, forcing us to stay here and take the Butt Rape Google is handing us.
So tell us, do we have a right to complain?
Well, for #2, I was prompted to keep my name, which means I do not think this is much of an issue. Furthermore, unless you are actually forced to use your real name, I see no problem with this.
For #4, I am not informed of likes, and for #5, I lost no subscriptions.
Otherwise, I agree completely.
☻/ This is Bob. Copy and paste him
/▌ all over youtube
/ \ so he can take over
SPREAD THE WORD, DEATH 2 GOOGLE, BRING THE OLD RUclips BACK!!!
OMG when he said "Pewdiepie is three doors down and to the left" I just burst out laughing. XD
I just want to say... 8:31 F**KING BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN! That glare is just the icing.
It's great that the message and dialect from this video will go so far above the head of the people who would be in dire need to understand the message.
Some of the responses from people saying "Not me! I HATE pop music! Nobody REALLY likes pop music!" are interesting. I think by even suggesting that people passively like pop music, the video's argument is weirdly rubbing up against a larger element: Music is a SUPER HUGE part of how people create their personal identities, and define themselves by saying "I like this, but NOT THAT, NEVER THAT."
Just interesting that even SUGGESTING that people broadly like pop music can provoke that kind of hostile reaction.
Why. Is the Like bar. Blue. Seriously google, quit making updates that make literally no sense that have ZERO purpose or functionality beyond annoying us.
Pop is just as valid a genre as any other genre people are so pretentiously trying to shove down others throats. Like, fuck, music is good if the person listening thinks it's good.
Well, if I ate cat poo and said it was good, does that make cat poo good? Would you try some cat poo if I told you it tasted good? Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?
ruclips.net/video/BOCjwHzo7y8/видео.html
By the way, pop is just short for popular, and is not really a genre in of itself. The "pop" music you listen to could be some form of rock, jazz, funk, classic, or whatever. But, pop music is not a genre.
Shane Grayson Pop music is different from popular music. Pop has defined characteristics (catchy hooks, verse-chorus-verse structure, etc). Also you cant compare pop music to feces.
You have to admit that pop songs have and will be broadcasted way more than any other genre. That is because of the huge marketing campain they receive. Making pop music is simple. Making the song you composed gain popularity is.
Shane Grayson If you ate cat poo and thought it was good then to you, cat poo is good. Obviously if someone thinks a song is good, people will disagree. Their opinions on music is entirely subjective and therefore what you say makes no sense. Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
All this talk about pop music Stockholm syndrome applies just as much to TV and movies. My understanding is that It's a Wonderful Life bombed in theaters. It did so badly that TV stations bought it at low price and put it on heavy rotation during the holidays when they expected people had better things to do than watch TV. Decades later It's a Wonderful Life is a classic and it's hardly Christmas without it.
I don't listen to the radio, the only reason I know of new pop songs is because youtubers talk about them and make parodies...
This is exactly my comment, if I wasn't drunk off my ass.
I was telling a music therapist I tried this, and he thought I was crazy...
This is so obvious to so many people, and I cannot go to a store in my neighborhood by being inflicted pop music on me...eyeroll...thank you for vindicating my sanity....
"thank you for vindicating my sanity...."
Your opinion shouldn't have to be validated for you to believe in them.
When I tell people I tend to only listen to 60s, 70s, and 80s music (with many exceptions like Daft Punk), they'll act as if I'm being unreasonable. When people act this way I feel as if they are being hypocrites who think modern pop is the only "good" music. All I'm saying is is I like a random band you never heard of, listen to them before you assume only modern, popular music can be good.
Amen, brother. Amen.
"Pewdiepie is four doors down and to the left."
I fucking jizzed lasers when I heard that clever critique. Seriously, I love you.
The commodification of taste and the cultural hegemony of certain songs (at least before they become yesterday's news) is useful, because it almost makes the personal discovery of a relatively unknown, under the radar band seem revolutionary, in some small, Camusian way. You went and found them; the musical industrial complex didn't project them at you in the way pop music is commonly projected. And to me it feels a little more special, that way.
*This is actually the funniest video I think the **PBS Idea Channel** has done so far!*
Although... It's an interesting idea, worth watching :-) If for nothing else but a few chuckles.
This is the Mere-exposure effect: Constant exposure produces a preference.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
You should do an episode on how IT giants like Google and Apple force us to like something, like the introducing of Google+ comment thing makes us miss the old comment format, while the old comment format was actually kind of bad when comparing to the format before Google bought RUclips.
I think that's actually a pretty cool idea.
The amount of overexposure is definitely a huge part of how I perceive most pop songs. The music that plays in the store I work at consists exclusively of a single mix that has songs I had never heard before when I got the job, but in the year I've worked there I've gone through the stages of pop music love/hate with every single one of them.
Believe it or not, that's what happened to me and my mums music. She played it so often that I eventually came to like it. BUT I don't listen to nearly enough radio, nor do I go shopping enough to have the influence elsewhere. Literally, I'm always behind because I learn of new songs via RUclips, and it's usually through fandoms. It's great because it puts another person between me and the record labels.
I think you have a point, but what about songs like Gangnam Style? They become popular for the music video mostly, and some aren't even advertised at all (Ylvis' "The Fox"). I think there's 2 elements you missed: the music video and the catchiness of the song. Either can get enough audience for it to reach a "critical mass" and become viral. Which can then turn into commercialization. Which came first? The answer is clearly different for Gangnam Style than for Baby.
Good point! However, I would think both "The Fox" and Gangnam Style would fall under meaning from the experiences our brain associates with them (the crazy dance/video). Thus this leads to a "catchy" song because of the uniqueness which the experience creates. And you're totally right about catchiness, what's great about our brains is they love patterns, so a song which uses repetition or simple lyrics/melodies, then our brains are more likely to hold on to them. This does not take away value from "viral" songs, but rather gives them a different cultural meaning than say... Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue".
My friends... You have been deluded in oh so many ways. PSY manager, Scooter Braun, (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Braun) is the same as Justin Bieber, and was responsible for giving his extra push to fame. They are precisaly the same thing, but they were marketed differently, as Bieber is selled as a mainstream thing, while PSY as an outsider and a "spontaneous" phenomenom. But don't be fooled, as Gangnam Style would never ever have break into mainstream conciousness if not for Braun clever viral positioning of it (asking famous friends to tweet it, paying up internet media to highlight it, and such).Same thing for Ylvis, as they made a contract with Warner Music right before releasing The Fox (which is so cynically crafted to become viral it's unbelievable). Mainstream distributors of content is vicious, and quickly adaptable to new media; don't be fooled by it.
Wait, I thought The Fox was created to be a commercial failure, so Ylvis could specifically make a joke about it...
allthingsd.com/20130529/how-the-macarena-and-many-bar-mitzvahs-helped-psy-break-big-with-gangnam-style-video/ you may have a point there with Psy though.
Carey Janecka See, that's where I get confused. How does complex music get popular then? I listen to a lot of music that eschews Three Chords and the Truth for technical showmanship and crazy musical decisions like switching to a completely new time signature every 4.5 seconds. I still manage to find this catchy and fun. Now, I may have an unfair advantage by being an experienced musician, but others who are not keep up just fine too.
Thank you Idea Channel. It was refreshing listening to your apology to the Mormons. So many people are dismissive of other's beliefs. Congrats on your inclusive outlook.
His comment on Pewdiepie was fucking gold.
Pop music gains meaning by expressing a sentiment that we can relate to. The popularity of "Royals" suggests that more people can relate to "counting their dollars on the train" than getting drunk on Cristal in a limousine. Unfortunately, there are so few voices on commercial radio that we are not getting enough diverse experiences to relate to; the same 5-6 artists (played ad nauseam) are saying the same things.
that was an absolutely beautiful response to why you "have to read into things more than what they really are"
Popular music repeatedly markets themselves to young audiences. This practice is good for business, but I can hardly find meaning in songs that exclude higher level thinking. Whether applying Bloom's Taxonomy or Webb's Depth of Knowledge theories, it is clear that popular music's simplicity emphasizes recall and reproduction of the lyrics (the lowest level of thought). Rarely do popular songs require investigation, evaluation of new ideas, drawing conclusions, or .critical thinking.
Speaking of popular music and popularity in general, I have a question for you guys. Aren't "haters" who spend hours each day obsessing over how much they hate someone or something fans of that thing? They spend hours a day thinking about something in the same way someone who loves that thing would, and "fan" is supposed to mean fanatic...
While that is a cool thought I would challenge you to define what constitutes a hater. If we expand on idea channel's thoughts about the prevalence of music then it makes sense that someone can come to have strong opinions in there dislike for a certain song or genre simply because it is so prevalent and hard to escape. It is almost like developing a phobia or mental tick about something like say people smacking gum or putting change on the counter even though you were holding out your hand for it, or something like people not saying thank you when you open the door. If it happens often enough then whenever it occurs again it triggers a reaction of built up rage or disgust due to a minor thing occuring frequently.
UriahXray Well, I was talking more about celebrities than certain behaviors. Like all the people who spend hours each day getting upset because Justin Bieber is popular. All they're doing is making him more famous. Is there any distinction between fame and infamy? After all, everyone remembers CopperCab.
@@TheShilohturtle hey i know im almost a decade late, but i just want to say the people who spend alot of time 'hating' on something do not represent the people who share their reasons on why they dont like something, its just that the 'haters' are the vocal majority who yes, are obsessed with what they are showing their dislike for, but not necessarily fans depending on whether you see a fan as someone who promotes a celebrity or someone who more specifically likes a celebrity
90's music had more creativity than today. Nowadays everyone copies eachother and with money from labels they put their crap music on Medias, Radio and everywere possible. Im sure they make false accounts on youtube or other sites to write good reviews to lure people to listen to their shit.
But yeah, as i been thinking, music today is only about money, 90's were more about creativity.
This comment got featured on the front page of reddit
I think the key is that there were no barriers, you can be as grungy and dark as you want or you can be the cheesiest and ridiculous as you want but now people are more aware of themselves and more self conscious which limits the full potential of creativity and self expression because they have a certain image they want to portray.
It may also be worth mentioning other factors in the music industry. For instance: I did not like "Thrift Shop" until I saw the music video and understood it a little better. I would automatically shut it off when it came on the radio and would not grant it even half a chance because I had heard it so often. I didn't understand it because I didn't truly listen to the lyrics and I didn't bother to pay it attention because it was on so damn frequently. Maybe some songs need to be repeated because they have deeper messages, but I know that I will automatically give them less of a chance because of the frequency which they are repeated. It is Joseph McLennan's Catch-22.
"In the Catch-22 of a closed repertoire, only music that is already familiar is thought to deserve familiarity"
"Pewdiepie is four doors down, and to the left" Oh shit, that guy just got shown the door.
I've always felt that "Pop" is the most nebulous and pointless genre label there is since it describes not the content of the music, but how it is marketed and consumed. Maybe it's more comprehensive when a song's prevailing creative intent is to be simple and appeal to a massive audience, but It shouldn't be used as the sole descriptor when the canon of singles that become hits covers a really diverse set of musical styles.
After 6 years, this is still relevant. The amount of payola these "BiG aRtiStS" are pulling to stay relevant... we're tired.
Yes! Katy Perry, Madonna's new album, Miley Cyrus... Diplo etc etc. Music today is generic bubble gum that is being forced down our throats!
+Gra Piken Right music lacks deeper connection sometimes. It's all about bring pleasure to fleeting moment of now and staying relevant instead of long-term cultural impact for generations to come
I am a soul that more into korean pop than American pop but I do enjoy the occasional song. I for one, believe that a pop song gains meaning to me through connection. Whether it be connection to a current situation, a ongoing life situation, or something that just happened yesterday.
I am a music lover that not only loves the beat and instruments of the song but the lyrics, the work, and the amount of soul the artist pours into it. I know that not many people think or work this way anymore, but I do. If a song cannot touch me in a deep, significant way like how Chandelier can or in a light fun manner like Happy then I am not a fan, despite the plentiful times a song will be played.
> Maybe "Get Lucky" gained just as much meaning from its content and the personal space it creates in your headphones or your car as it does from being played in other contexts...
The obvious expansion here is the rest of the album. Would I not like "Touch" if "Get Lucky" didn't make me think of my dad and I eating Taco Bell? Are Daft Punk helmets scary to my parents because they don't frequent places where that music is played?
The less obvious (or perhaps less certain) jumps come from crossing media. If hearing "Get Lucky" in a safe place helps me think of Daft Punk helmets as not-scary, did hearing jazz make abolitionists less xenophobic? Did Bob Dylan help bring down the Berlin Wall? Would Congressmen be better representatives if we forced them to listen to our favorite tunes?
----------
How do we factor globalization into this equation? If all it really takes to like the same music is to hear the same music, shouldn't all countries be empathetic by now? Who is dropping the ball?
The thing that people don't understand is that what differenciates "pop music" from real music is that "pop" is made for the big money. Real artists actually have passion and their pieces aren't there for ANYTHING excepting being there. Sure, real artists want a bit of money so they can live on and make some more music without being thrown out of their appartment, but a true artist's goal is not being rich.
Pop "artist" : Making money and becoming popular in a short amount of time
Real artist : Creating pieces that will last throughout the ages
Pop "piece" : There to surrender people to give money to being entertained.
Real art : There for no reason other than being there and being what it is.
Well, wait, don't you think that is sort of a black and white viewpoint? I mean, I'm not going to argue that lots of pop music is so heavily produced that there is no way that the people involved have preserved the meaning, but that doesn't mean all pop musicians are out solely for money, and have no passion. Remember, a lot of performers passion come from just that: performing. A recording artist is someone who's art IS recording, not necessarily writing or producing the content. Whether or not the song in question was produced artistically may not effect the passion of the artist recording it. There is something to be said about perfecting one's craft.
Now, that being said, the motivation behind creating a piece should not effect it's message, or artistic integrity, at least not in my opinion. Lots of artists, of varying types, use their art to make a living, and would quit doing it if it stopped paying the bills. At the very least, they'd most likely do it a lot less. This sometimes results in people losing passion for what they are doing, and end up ONLY doing it for money, but I would argue that that isn't always the case. If a babysitter is passionate about childcare, that passion shouldn't be expected to lose value if they do it for money. Same for Doctors and Firefighters who are passionate about saving lives. A purely autotelic viewpoint of art, while often humbling and philosophical, isn't always accurate, as it disregards personal experience and interaction on the artists part in creating the piece, in favor of how others see or interpret the ARTIST, rather than their work.
That's pretty ignorant. If you think of pop music as simply popular, let's take radiohead as an example. They definitely do not release music with the fans in thought, e,g Amnesiac and Kid A, but they are one of the biggest bands in the world. It's possible to be popular WITHOUT writing meaningless drivel for the audience.
You can be popular without being pop (shitty), but you can't be pop without being popular. The word pop derives from popular
That isn't exactly true. Perhpas in Pop Music Culture, but if we talk about it from a strictly musical point of view, pop music is simply anything with an extremely catchy hook, verse chorus structure and an aim towards accessibility. You can't just say pop derives from popular, because its turned into a style now. Saying that is like saying Indie derives from Independent (which is does), therefore every single band on an independent label are indie.
No, it just so happened that these 'independent' bands started playing a similar sound that in the end got grouped together to form the term 'indie music'. You can hear indie characteristics in the same way you can hear pop music characteristics.
Also what's wrong with pop music? Are you telling me you've never listened and liked a song with a verse chorus structure that has a catchy chorus? Cos if so, you bloody well like pop
I, for one, am really detached from pop music. I do know a few of the top-played songs, but I always get comments from my friends whenever we're riding a car together and I don't know the song that's being played (hipster much?). It's not that I don't want to listen to it because it's popular, it's just not appealing to me personally.
I also think it's interesting how you mention Lady Gaga and Mumford and Sons both being pop music, because I am aware of Mumford's latest album but not Gaga's. I feel a sort of pride when a group I liked from the very beginning breaks into the mainstream.
Pop music for me is a social construct, as many popular songs do follow a somewhat formulaic format because producers know what the masses are going to like. For example, groups assembled by record companies (or Simon Cowell) that are designed to be popular and to be consumed. Whilst those groups can get better in the long run, I dislike groups and music being formed and produced in an assembly-line format. I'll say it feels somewhat unnatural, lacking a better way to describe it.
Ha, Code Geass.
I think another good point to make is that, with media frenzy at an all time high, recording artists like Kanye West, Beyonce, Rihanna, Drake, etc are separated from their art entirely, and are publicized for any little thing they do. So not only are you hearing their songs all the time, but you're also SEEING them in the news. On top of it all, their lifestyles in general only perpetuates some kind of strange mass infatuation.
Also on a side note, pop music has also kind of integrated itself into Government to propagate a collective mind both politically and culturally....a psyop if you will
Honestly? Pop music is so formulaic in how it gets written that listening to it seriously feels like I'm forcing my ears to do algebra. There's nothing interesting or unexpected, it's basically just a matter of figuring out what mood or feeling the song is supposed to have, then looking-up the formula for how those songs are "supposed" to sound. It's to the point where I honestly don't know which songs are by which performers (beyond generally knowing if it's a male or female vocalist), unless someone specifically tells me, because every song just sounds the same to me.
Pop music is feel good noise that is becoming harder to be called music. Music to me is something I can consider something timeless and a snapshot into time. So much stuff is being released, it's hard to keep track of what's actually good. The trouble some of the freebie radio stations in LA listening to in the car is that they play the same songs with no variety, and then I wonder how or why people shell out money for Cyrus or Bieber. Such disgraces to America.
JuliusCaesar108 Michael Jackson was a pop artist and is the most well known and recognised musician of all time.
I do listen to the radio, it's true. But I listen to NPR. I wonder how many people in that 92% are listening to talk radio with little to no music.
Blurred Lines.
That fucking song. At first, I was like "This is the most boring song I've hear in a long while, why is this popular ?"
Then I was like "This fucking song is fucking everywhere! WHY ?! Who likes this fucking song ?!"
Now I'm like "I HATE THESE BLUUUURREEED LIIIINEEEES...I KNOW YOU WANT IT, I KNOW YOU WANT IT"
I just sing it...every time I hear it...I think it's a stupid little pop tune, but at least I don't hate it anymore. I just accept it as a stupid little pop tune.
That is called Stockholm Syndrome, my friend.
Fuck !
I don't listen to much pop music, one of the biggest problems I have with it is how shallow it is, which makes sense as it needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator of people to be as widely successful as it is. This doesn't mean that everything that becomes popular is shallow but it affects the odds. The best pop music works multiple levels so that the listener can invest themselves as much as they want. This applies both musically and in same cases lyrically.
Music has pretty much defined my life. I was 10 or 11 when I first heard the Beatles on a jukebox, & began listening to the radio nonstop. Before FM was the standard, there were a few stations that played "underground" (early Floyd, Cream, etc), canned programs with little or no commercials.
By the time I was 16 I had a fabulous collection of such music, but, after I married & had kids I lived in a radio-free world until I was about 23. The underground stations were barely hanging on by then (WIBG & WMMR in Philly) and I lived for music.
After moving to Nashville TN in '78, the majority of the time I listened to old lps & music recommended by friends. There's only so much Southern rock I can listen to without reaching a point of saturation. I've been radio-free the last 30 years, finding most of the music I buy through tv shows, RUclips, etc. I cannot stand commercials, and it seems the main focus of radio today is advertisements...even satellite radio.
Still, I have a pretty good music collection, with a varied library; 60's underground, a few bands from the '80s & '90's, TSO, AU4, Trance (Goa, Acid House), Savatage, Beethoven, Vivaldi, dub step, Art of Noise, club music...The list goes on. I hate having music shoved down my throat, but if I'm on a road-trip with a radio fanatic I'll take note of what I like & head on over to iTunes.
Even after all these years I'm still open to new music, as long as it's good. There's so much drek out there it's sometimes difficult to find anything I like enough to purchase.
I know this isn't very exciting, but, I don't let pop music rule my life. I fled from it 45 years ago, & every time I hear pop radio I'm reminded why. I did have a profound closing statement, but I've forgotten it - must be that Beyoncé song a neighbor is playing loud enough to knock stuff off my bookshelves...
AH that's your problem. Stop listening to the radio. Build your own music collection and put it on shuffle when you're in the car or make a Pandora station with artists you actually like. There is no reason to listen to music other people want you to listen to aka the radio. I gave up the radio a looooooong time ago.
I think that cultural taste is dictated to us. We are not allowed to decide for ourselves. I think that most pop music sucks. It, like many facets of culture is shoved down our throats.
Hello, Pop Music. You have taken my taste hostage....you need to be aware that I have a certain set of skills which....if deployed...could be detrimental to you, if my taste is harmed, or not returned to me......I am going to hang up now, and you will be hearing from me soon.
You should not be doubting your own taste like this.
My view is that the music industry is legally doing what the tobacco companies wish they could do. That is, they hook you as a kid, then know that they'll have you for life. I know, I know, "Take off your tinfoil hat, Shiro," but think about it; virtually all pop music (regardless of the age of the diva or group) is marketed to teens and preteens. Then, when they get into adulthood, they keep listening to the music because it's just what they know.
I used to be so anti-pop that I automatically hated anything the genre put out. Then I realized in hindsight that I was ignoring or maligning some pretty good music.
This is interesting when we look at RUclips comments. Formally (present company excluded), RUclips was renowned for having the worst comments section in the world. Are we now defending the old system because of Stockholm Syndrome? Will the new G+ integration also go so poorly that eventually it has die hard fans?
That's a really good point, I can't believe I didn't realize it earlier. RUclips comments were *awful*; all we're doing is moving from one awful system to another (potentially) awful system. What's so great about the status quo in that case? What's with Bob and all the tanks? I don't understand humanity.
_Argumentum Ad Traditio_. It's the same line of thinking holding back gay marriage or keeping people on Windows XP.
PLEASE DONT EVER COMPARE GET LUCKY TO BLURED LINES. ACTUALLY NO DONT PUT ANY METOIN OF BLURED LINES ANYWHERE PLEASE
I have a sneaking suspicion that the great pop music (non)debate is just another form of: My subculture is better than yours! Nuh-uh! Is too! Is not! etcetcetc
The radio is a horrible torture device and I know a lot of people who like it. They even voluntarily play pop music. I can understand liking a song that I do not like, but any song played every day becomes horrible torture.
Here's the thing: I don't listen to pop music. I listen to things like movie scores (John Williams is the man), and jazz from the fifties, and chiptunes: the only time that I hear pop is when I watch television or movies where those songs show up (and I usually hate it when I do, because often the music was shoehorned in because of its fame, not because it fits the tone), or when the songs get big enough on RUclips that they've become a meme, such as when Taylor Swift's song You Belong with Me was parodied as You've Become a Meme.
But that said, I feel left out sometimes, like I don't understand my own generation. I went to a football game the other week and everyone was singing along to the 20 second cuts of pop music that they were playing in between plays, and I had no idea what was going on. I sort of hate this genre, but I have become the old woman yelling at kids to get off her lawn because of that. It makes me sad.
How you get all those assets, those short gif flicks? Do you have some kind of libary or really great eidetic memory?
Pop is ruined. it's always the same people, same beat, same song,always about drugs,sexual intercourse,or "my girlfriend broke up with me". Women in pop music videos are always %99 hoe %1 artist.
Yeah. It ain't cute. Just look at a cat and think "so cute."
Well, you might call me an ass hat but i think the pop music of this year and the few last were garbage, certainly not all of them, but most of them had maybe 1 cathy phrase, were pretty dull or just downright terrible. But that's my opinion.
I also wonder, that in the past rock as a music genre apeard because of childs wanting to do what they want and break the system, this happend allot before like the renaissance. Now everything is clear and right again, could it be that maybe in 20 years we go back to wild and freaky?
I have the same opinion so your awesome to me :D
This is just kind of the hallmark of lazy song writers. This happens in all music Rock, Pop and especially Country. But those songs will fade with time, mostly, Kiss still is fairly well know for rocking all night and partying every day, over and over again.
I stopped listening to pop music back in 05 or so when soft rock got completely pushed out the top 40 by hip hop, but Matchbox 20 the Goo Goo Dolls and Train have all put out new albums so maybe I might try some of it again.
The thing is, now that these rock stars in the 80s are older, more mature, have lots of money and take their careers very seriously when they go on tour in the 2010s, people now think of them as "the system". And the reason why things seem screwed up now is because kids now want to be part of "the system" because they look at all these pop stars making more money than even imaginable.
You're right, the only way American culture can truly come back is when "the system" becomes uncool again.
fraroc I don't know a whole lot of kids who look up to 80's rockers... They are kind of know as over the top, drug addicted ego manics. And it take 2 or more of what used to be headliners to string together a tour.
Only system I ever wanted anything to do with is the System of a Down. Can I get an ah men 90-00's rockers?
Either way the counter culture in america is dead. Punk is dead and the only people who want to stand apart from the system are hipster... and they are only doing it to be 'ironic'.
God I love a good rant every know and then. Sorry it was in reply to you.
stardude692001 AMEN
Aaand the sickest burn of the year award goes to Mike, at 8:30
I am pretty sure you just answered the question I ask all the Metal bands I interview, "How can we make Heavy Metal Popular again?" I always blamed the fans of pop for procreating other pop tarts and stamping out the fire that is rock music but it seems I've blamed the wrong group all this time! My eyes are open now!
As a radio student who aims to put the rest of his life into radio, I am so glad that Mike brought up that Neilsen stat so now my geek friends who watch Idea Channel can finally SHUT UP and stop looking at me like I've got the career viability of a horse-drawn buggy driver.
8:40 buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn...!
I am at the age of 13. Mostly everyone in the same age as me talk about Pop Music 24/7. They say to me "Have you heard, the latest Katy Perry song?" I say to them "Have you heard Beethovens 9th Symphony?" Its very dissapoiting what this world has come too, Its almost as the defintion of music has changed. I personally think that Pop music is brainwashing a lot of people. For the influence of "Pop" Music and most of them are about sexual relations, many of my peers think that you need a girlfreind at the age of 10-11 or else you are a loser. I dont understand. Are they really going to reproduce at this age? I dont care what people say about me, I will always like true classical music and nothing else.
Don't worry, as you get older those people will hopefully die off due to their unfathomable stupidity
Well of course you like classical, it's in your programming.
Well aren't you just a special fucking snowflake?
"I will always like true classical music and nothing else."
Nothing else? Nothing at all?
"Its very dissapoiting what this world has come too, Its almost as the defintion of music has changed."
Music is an important part of life, but it's not representative of all of society.
"I personally think that Pop music is brainwashing a lot of people."
No, they just like it.
@@oceanceaser44 What the hell is wrong with you? It's not right to hope for people to die because of their music tastes.
I hate pop music with a burning passion specifically because I can't get away from it. The fact that I find most pop music to be musically uninteresting from a theory perspective does not help this at all.
I think that pop music is pop music for a reason. It is popular.
Let me simplify.....If THEY say its Cool...The Public Will Follow ...so not to feel Out of touch! The "Beavis and Butthead" effect!
You should introduce yourself at the start of every episode. I watch your stuff regularly but I can never remember your name ideachannelguy.
I've watched all the videos on the channel and never had Mike sounded as serious as he does at 8:33 . That look on his face is just plain creepy.
I agree with him on that, though.
dear the-people-who-make-this-channel-happen,
thank you so much for the thought provoking 10 minute-ish videos that give my brain a break from the mind numbing videos that are the majority.
please never stop.
love, maria.
The social function of music is constantly changing. In the XVIIIth century, music was defined by many as "beautiful noise", and was nothing more than a pleasant way to pass one's time. Each physical space had its appropriate music: there was "musica da teatro" to be played in theater, "musica da chiesa" to be played in church services, "musica da camera" to be played to a smaller, more intimate audience, and there was even "musica da mensa", music to be played while people were eating. Composers were usually employed by a nobleman, and were expected to write music for a specific social occasion: weddings, funerals, dinner parties, etc. Composers like Haydn and Bach, for instance, might not have considered their music an "artwork" in the modern sense of the word.
XIXth century saw the rise of the Genius musician, and of the "superior" artforms, all reunited under the canon of "fine arts". For Schumann, music was more than just beautiful noise, but a true artwork in and of itself - all arts being, according to him, different embodiments of aesthetic beauty which he called "poetry". Romantic composers were no longer writing music to do a patron's bidding. The ideal Romantic artist was more than happy to suffer hunger and poverty to do "art for art's sake", and was "misunderstood" by the common public. If, by any chance, he attained success, like Chopin or Liszt, they would fall into the category of virtuoso, a Genius who has reached a level of artistry unattainable by mere mortals.
XXth century messed things up. With the advent of recording devices, the social function of music has radically changed. Sure, there is still music for special occasions like weddings, funerals, etc. But music was now more accessible than ever. You don't necessarily have to go to theater or to church, or know how to play an instrument to be able to experience music. It is just one click away from you. It is, also, constantly following you no matter you go, as you are bombarded by mass media pop music. Several subcultures define themselves by the music they listen to.
In my honest opinion, mass media is the final blow to the head on that Romantic ideal of the misunderstood composer doing art for art's sake. The XXIth century artist has come to terms with the fact that music is a product to be consumed. As a result, the thoughtful process of writing and composing good music, which worked completely fine for centuries, has broken down. Pop music is ABABCA. Verse -refrain-verse-bridge-refrain. Four or five chords, strong electronic beats (and sometimes even that is too complex) and there you go, instant hit. XVIIIth century's ideal of "agreeable noise" has made a great comeback. I think most people don't care too deeply for pop music (unless they're 12), and just want a strong beat to dance to. Or a background noise for life.
I particularly hate pop music. Though Gotye, I admit, is kind of nice.
I think that pop music might be gaining meaning through the psychological phenomena known as the mere-exposure effect. This is simply where the mere exposure to the stimuli constantly over time will allow you to further understand it, and possibly will help you to create a positive relation with it that allows you to actually like it.
I sincerely believe that pop music is generally morphing into one song. The executives seem to have it sussed. The somewhat original pop music that used to exist has been replaced by stuff that sounds like the songwriters/lyricists consulted a focus group. It looks like the spectrum of what constitutes 'chart worthy' songwriting has narrowed, and many people will miss out on great music, not realising that their narrowing musical tastes, even within chart music, have been dictated by money hungry executives that think 'who needs creativity? if it ain't broke don't fix it!' sigh....
"and many people will miss out on great music"
That's not objective.
I honestly hate pop music. Thrash and Rock for life!
When I lived in a Beninese village for two years, I absolutely craved pop music and listened to it whenever I had electricity, even though I had actively avoided it when living in America. I think that since it is actually unavoidable, ambient pop music is an important and overlooked aspect of everyday American life. We basically all have shared soundtracks for large portions of our days. When I found myself without that soundtrack for weeks and months on end, I distinctly felt something missing.
"Stockholm syndrome" may be an appropriate analogy for the way some pop music obtains it's popularity, but there is a more optimistic element at play here that I'm afraid may go mostly unrecognized; I've seen people take an immediate liking to a song and have experienced this myself.
Sometimes it is easy to point to good reasons why a song is immediately likable, "it's romantic", "I can relate to the content of the lyrics", "it's an extremely listenable 'earworm'", "I can recognize that a lot of time or talent was put into creating this song", "this song is unique and has some facet I appreciate that sets it apart from other songs".
It's important to recognize that there are bad reasons to like music, and some of these reasons are exploited in order to turn a profit (mere-exposure effect, groupthink, etc.) but these bad reasons don't exist in a vacuum; the music industry wouldn't exist if people didn't like music in the first place :)