The Real Reason Pop Music 'sucks' today which no one tells you
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 май 2024
- The New York Times recently compared the Beatles and Taylor Swift, looking at number of Billboard hits, impact etc. But I think they missed the key difference. And that has something to do with a little movie called Moneyball. And it may just explain why modern popular music sucks as Rick Beato keeps lamenting
Utkarsh Mohan is a Singapore based writer, musician and artist of Indian origin. Formerly in corporate senior management, he now pursues his passions and is also the owner of the Ministry of Guitar collection
You can also follow him on Instagram @ministryofguitar 
Видеоклипы
![Eminem - Tobey (feat. Big Sean & Babytron) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9xn0OHEZZ8Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I have been saying this to anyone will listen. It's the McDonalds-ization of music. Cutting costs, cookie cutter, assembly line, and understanding the lowest common denominator ways they can poke pleasure centers in people 's brains.
This is why mainstream music today (mostly) sucks, but there is a wealth of great artists in alternative/indie/underground circles. The artists who care about their art, who want to maintain their creative control aren't signing with mainstream labels.
So far as I know..there is NO REASON for an actual artist to sign with a major label. Its almost ALWAYS a bad idea.
@@georgebarry8640 I mean the marketing and distribution aspect is definitely to the advantage of someone signed with a major label. There's a reason everyone hears their music even though its rubbish.
McDonald's is a good analogy to the artistic industries. What their algorithms appear to me to be doing is giving the customers exactly what they expect, which is the the strategic forte of brands such as McDonald's, Motel 6, NY Times, etc. Of course, what the customers expect includes a tiny dose of surprise and novelty, and the the algorithms control those ingredients precisely, too.
Even back in the day, signing with major labels sucked. The Beatles tried to solve the problem by starting their old label. Tom Petty, Prince, and many others had highly publicized problems with their labels. Tommy James signed with a label run by the Mob, he literally got paid almost nothing for record sales, cheated out of 40million dollars(in the sixties!).
It’s just so hard to teach a large audience without them.
This is true, but I feel the industry has slowly become more and more involved in dictating every move the artist makes based on data and algorithms the labels never had access to back then. At least the labels didn't push everyone to have the same plastic sounds back then.
This is an important point. The shift away from human judgement and towards analysis and data. Modern spiritual sickness.
110% correct. #SpiritualSickness.
Precisely. Analysis & data are computational. But there is nothing computational about creating truly great music. That requires a human consciousness.
What do we call the people who are like this? Are they literally soulless?
It isn't just autism. "Autism" doesn't cause people to use statistics to justify their own conclusions, knowing how statistics are manipulated, anyway.
But spirituality can lead to lousy gospel music. And dangerous backup singers on all kinds of records in the past. I only wish I liked the alternative bands of today as they are not all that much better than the generic pop music of today.
And it's not just happening in music. It's happening in Hollywood, it's happening in sports, it's happening in comedy...heck, I'm involved in the pro wrestling business, and at the big, national levels of the industry, it's happening there, as well. "Analytics" have become a substitute for thinking, judgement, and guts. Nobody has to be held accountable for making a decision that doesn't work out, because they can simply point to some analytics that justified the decision, and everyone just accepts it.
The word "PRODUCT" says all.... If you don't give a fuck about making money or becoming famous the problem does not exist. The pure joy and depth of creativity is in essence a playing child that's discovering and renewing all the time. Creativity isn't a formula. .. ...
Exactly. Top 40 musicians aren’t artists, they’re products
You Testify! my friend.
THANK YOU! I was just about to write the same. The moment the word product gets in, it’s all screwed up. Just the same the concept of “clip” or “video” got replaced by “CONTENT” in RUclips.
The concept of product vulgarizes any art form, eliminates the emotional and semantic value and converts it into a transaction, a Happy Meal with a toy in it.
Also, music "industry". I was chatting with someone who was defending the state of modern opera, saying they were "proud to be part of this industry." (Opera industry.) It explains a lot.
There was no music streaming when The Beatles ruled the charts. We paid for our music. You think swifties want to buy her music???
The same issue has drifen out creativity in American cinema. Frank Zappa said the record industry was better when it was run by old guys who didn't understand the music, and took a chance on an artist if they thought the kids might dig it. A&R departments trying to second guess audience taste ruied the industry in his opinion.
brilliant insight
A&R departments where run by failed artists many times.
I quote that conversation all the time. He was right. Music benefits from disinterested patronage. Max Martin is the Andrew Lloyd Webber of pop music. Blech
There's a video of Frank Zappa on one of the late night shows from either the late 1950s or early 1960s where he demonstrated how to use a bicycle as a musical instrument. If I'm not mistaken, Frank went to Juliard. Frank was no dummy.
@@mikewolverton7904It would have been the 60's and yes, he was brilliant.
One big event that helped destroy both competition and quality of popular music was the Communication Act of 1996. It allowed a few corporation to buy up multiple radio stations in muiltiple markets across the U.S. Before this law was enacted a DJ might promote an artist or multiple artists from their home town or local area. Each radio station would create its own play lists. This allowed local flavor of different areas to flourish. An artist might become big in their state or geographic area long before gaining national success.
Today a handful of people; maybe less than a dozen, decide the playlists for virtually every commercial radio station in the U.S., because just a few companies own almost every commercial radio station in America. And it can even get worse as A.I. may soon replace those few people who make these decisions today.
You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #CommieFascism destroying the Arts.
Great great point. Back in the 1970's WNEW-FM in New York was an early stereo station that had a very special character and really promoted AOR. By the 1980's they were bought out.
@bobnolin91b55
😢
Consolidation and lack of competition never improve things for the consumer.
Well said. Thank you.
As a musician, it's frustrating knowing that there is a professional team collaborating on every 3-minute pop song, with up to 5 producers and 5 songwriters, even using AI, while I can't seem to find anyone to listen to my homemade music which I create and perform as a human being.
It's the difference between owning a stuffed animal and a real dog. I want a dog that cuddles and licks my face, I want a song that tickles my ears and feeds my soul.
@@ocheltree1 There is not soul, nothing but the prime mover who came and went.
i subscribed to you
Don't feel disheartened. Good things take time to fructify. I subscribed to your channel
I work as guitar and bass teacher. Some time ago, I bought the notes for "FourFiveSeconds" in which one music legend like Paul mcCartney played, remember? Well, in the credits are 4 composers aside. 4 composers for a Ѕнit mainly played on the guitar with two fingers? Are you kidding me, or is it money laundry?
The Beatles appeared as kings of The Golden Age of Rock. Taylor Swift appears as the queen of The Golden Age of Mediocrity. Kali Yuga, man.
Not really. When they first appeared they were super simple boring pop music. A major step back to what people like Chuck Berry were doing 5 years earlier.
there's one thing you don't understand about music. and you won't understand it when you're finished reading this because you'll deny it because you're too intelligent huh. a lodge where a bunch of guys wear little aprons.
you have a nice day now.
oh, and: never let the bull teach you the cloth.
Yeah sure, mediocrity because you don't like it. Taylor's music connected to millions of people, she won 4 Grammy AOTY (more than anyone), she was picked as the Person of the Year (the only entertainer ever), she has the biggest tour of all time. It's ok to not like her music but you can't deny her influence, impact and relevance.
" the last throw of the dice",
@kant12 I love Ya ya ya, l was 5 years old and thought how retarded those lyrics were, but l was 5 and can't be expected to understand their genius, l am 63 and still haven't figured out their genius. I just take it was the generation that made drugs safe for the X generation that thought they were genius
Comparing Taylor to The Beatles is an insult to the great band
Wouldn't it be just as fair to say it's an insult to Taylor?
@@BillySoundFarm One sold songs, the other her body.
Not too disparage the Beatles, I'm from their country and era, but they were a manufactured boy band originally. Their music was comparable to other Merseyside style bands but they got more promotion.
They did morph into something else after becoming heavily involved in drugs, esoteric religion and hearing artists from the States such as Dylan, etc.
I do agree though Swift isn't in the same league artistically as the Beatles or any of the other major sixties and seventies artists for that matter
I prefer the Beatles music over Taylor's. . But I'm 50 years old.
Older generations usually don't get the newer music. Always been that way. No need for us to yell at clouds.
@@Mars-mr3om I'm so disappointed. I also prefer the Beatles, I don't even like Taylor Swift. I just wanted to start a fight 😂... But you had to be so "reasonable"...
Today, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If that formula had been enforced with the Beatles, Yesterday, Michelle, Eleanor Rigby, etc, would not have been released. Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys would not exist, no Stairway to Heaven, no Bohemian Rhapsody ...........
Pet Sounds doesn't exist without studio musicians - the Beach Boys had a lot of help putting that together, Eleanor Rigby doesn't exist without George Martin, Stairway to Heaven wasn't even anything remotely like a hit single on the charts. But here we are blaming Taylor Swift for using a few of the best producers she can find to help her get what she wants out of a record.
@@PFB1994 The best producers today are stuck in the same trap. They won't take the same creative risks as in the 60s as it's a gamble on success. The fact that we now have all this data accrued to show what most people want, any big company is going to use that to maintain a competitive edge and apply pressure to its artists and producers to comply.
@@PFB1994The only thing George Martin did for Eleanor Rigby, was ring up the orchestral musicians. If you think Paul McCartney would not have his hands on every bit of that song, you're crazy. Just because someone cannot write music, in the technical sense, doesn't mean he couldn't convey to the orchestra, what he wanted for Eleanor Rigby.
Also no David Bowie at all basically, no Pink Floyd, no Paul Weller and definitely no Jimi Hendrix
@@arkhamguard6479 Pink Floyd and Jimi Hendrix barely had any hits. All Along the Watchtower was Jimi Hendrix only hit single. Pink Floyd's only big hit was Another Brick in the Wall - because the producer forced the drummer to play a disco beat. Paul Weller, maybe had hits in the UK but absolutely never existed in the US based on pop charts. Bowie did have a good number of hits - including a few when he brought in Disco Mega producer Nile Rogers.
As an independent musician, singer, songwriter, guitar player, I can tell you unequivocally, that these streaming services do only one thing. They get you heard but nothing more. You can have 250,000 plays and only make $25.00 bucks getting paid less than a cent per stream. You can have 250,000,000 streams and only make $250.00 bucks! It's effing maddening. And venturing into touring when you've already made so little ti finance it is a non- starter. The music industry today is as much of a ripoff as it was 40 years ago. Everyone makes money but the artists.
And most of what is considered popular today is crap. People using machines to make their music are making more bank than real musicians is an insult to anyone who has spent years growing as a real musician and perfecting their craft!
I speculate that with auto tune, AI, major groups in stadium venues miming to their recorded voices, that music will circle back to small groups in small local venues for audiences seeking REAL music.
@@philipliethen519 Ha!~
Maybe its time to #SMASHSTREAMING!!!???
That’s not entirely true, you need to Google some net worths of the bands/musicians of the 1960’s and 1970’s!
This situation exists throughout the entertainment industry. Large, risk averse corporations control much of the market for movies, music, literature, and video games. The result is a lot of dumbed down, safe, lowest common denominator stuff that has nothing new to say, and specifically in video games, there are gambling mechanics and microtransactions to rip people off. These companies pursue whatever is likely to generate a short term profit for the least amount of effort and risk. Artistic quality doesn't enter into the equation. It seems like most consumers have been conditioned to desire whatever is safe and familiar. I think this is natural on some level - if you like something, you will want more of it - but a lot of people have lost the ability to get out of their comfort zone and explore new things.
Decades ago, there were a lot of small operators in music. There were tiny local record labels, independently owned radio stations, and record stores. A record that somebody made in a nasty old garage could potentially be picked up by the local radio station, get noticed by a wider audience, get noticed by other radio stations, and eventually blow up into a big regional, national, or international hit. Today, this mode of discovery and distribution is gone. It seems like the only way something like this can happen now is for somebody to post their music on the internet, and maybe it will go viral if they are massively lucky. There are still a lot of musicians floating around, and recordings that don't fit within the bland, corporate space are out there, but it takes some digging to find them. Similarly, there are independent artists in movies, literature, and video games who are taking risks and going for an artistic statement rather than a corporate money machine, but it is hard for them to get noticed. Those of us who don't like the current state of pop music need to put in some effort. Search around, find the higher quality music that is sitting out there in the underground, and support the artists by buying their music.
And who are the #BEANCOUNTERS and #MoneyManagers and #HEDGEFUND #QUANT folks? Could they even be the #ZIONISTS? They are destroying #WesternCulture. Lets not forget about the #SATANISTS #SEXUALPERVERTS #Communists and #PSYOPS gangs!
Amen, needs some effort and discernment 😊 🎶
Noel Gallagher said that the music industry doesn't like mavericks, today it's full of people who only care about profit and listen to whatever the companies tell them. In the 90s you had bands like Oasis, Primal Scream, Blur or Manic Street Preachers, in the 70s you had bands like Sex Pistols, The Jam, The Clash, T. Rex, Pink Floyd and David Bowie, in the 60s you had the Beatles, Beach Boys, Velvet Underground, The Stooges, Jimi Hendrix, etc. All of them experimented, changed, weren't afraid to go out of their comfort zone, now it's not like that, they just want people like Taylor Swift or Harry Styles, they tell them "wear that dress and shut it. Wear this, sing that and go home"
Correct, that is why so many Brirish Bands that came in after the Beatles folded in 3 years or so, no more hits...they stuck to the "formula" Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers. So many more. That goes for American Bands also, like the Buckinghams, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, even the Byrds... I love those old bands though bercause I grew up with them. Hell, even the Beach Boys floundered regardless of the Pet Sounds album hype.
@@thomastimlin1724 Sure they stuck to formulas but mostly they had writers writing for them and these writers, not part of the band, just ran out of ideas. All except the Beatles I don't think wrote their own songs and when they did, it wasn't good. Ever heard new bands do oldies? They tend to suck and that is because they must not really like the sound of the 60s - 90s. They do their own generic digital thing.
Oasis? Are you serious? A band whose repertoire is made of rip offs from The Beatles´songs?
@@sidalientv I dunno, some of their stuff is definitely not that Beatlesque, besides they were still mavericks, didn't care what anyone thought of them
@@arkhamguard6479😂😂😂😂
Pop music & Nashville, too; designed by marketing departments based on consumer habits rather than artists' ideas. I love the moneyball analogy!
Country is the new pop. Music for the masses
@@gregpusczek4473 I didn't know the Pope liked Country Music...
This guy is spot on. It's all about market analysis & number crunching now instead of judgement. MP3 Science instead of trying to come up with new ideas. People are so worried about AI but what AI does is not much different from what record company execs have been doing for decades. Scraping from the existing catalogue for maximum efficiency & predictable content.
When comparing music, I sometimes look at it this way. There are roughly two kinds of hit songs. First there are those that are hits for their time, but gradually fade away and are mostly forgotten. Then there are songs that enter the public consciousness and retain a lot of popularity for decades or longer. The Beatles had a lot of songs in the later category. Michael Jackson had a fair number too. On the other hand, I have to confess that I don't know a single Taylor Swift song. I listened to a few but I wasn't particularly impressed and I quickly forgot them. I just remember them sounding very stock to my ears. But that's just me, and I'm squarely in the boomer category. The point is, if people are still listening to Taylor Swift songs as they do Beatles songs, 30+ years from now, I would call those great songs, regardless of if I like them or not. However the jury is still out on that.
Modern "Pop Music" is STRICTLY about making the Captains of the Music Industry 100's of MILLIONS of dollars. That is why "artists" like Taylor Swift, The Backstreet Boys and N'Sync have been shoved down our throats and plenty of greater artists are ignored.
me neither
To further expand on that idea, music has always been heavily dependent on the "producer". Producers of the past seem to be more creative in crafting a song, more willing to experiment. Modern producers seem to be very formulaic. Heavy use of sound samples and autotune doesn't help. I agree there is still good music being created. Just take a listen to all the rock/metal stuff coming out of Japan. But you can't even get any kind of "airplay" for stuff not coming from the big boys. More than ever, you have to actively seek it out.
@@DAVID-io9nj True this. Remember Don Kirshner invented The Monkees. Like'em or not, they had some great singles. When "the artists" took over in that instance, the music went to shite. Kirshner went with The Archies.
The Ohio Express was just a name for tracks produced in house. All of this was not much different than creating music with a computer. But a lot of the songs were good.
The focus away from radio to streaming is the biggest part of it, but the labels buying ownership of venues like Spotify are a bigger part. It comes down to billionaires. Break up their control and another more democratic structure would develop. But it still wouldn't change the rise of AI.
@@JW-lx5di Yeah, The Monkees had tons of great songs. Most were written for them but yes, when guys like Boyce and Hart went out and tried to do them on their own, they weren't nearly as good.
Moneyballing in music has been around for a long time: Tin Pan Alley, teen idols in the 50s with professional songwriters... I'm not disagreeing with your point, I'm just saying it has been like this for a long time for mostly "disposable" music (decades later we only remember the classics, but in the time of the Beatles the charts were full of throwaway pop too). The change is that is has become a lot more dominant and calculated.
So name ten of these "throwaway pop" tunes from the Beatles era. The 60s were great because there were all kinds of musical genres, but almost all had strong melodies and lyrics that were better than the 50s.
Yes I instantly realized that when he said it. Good reminder!
@@harvey1954but that the thing, they’re “throwaway” songs precisely because people can’t name them.
Gen Z discover moneyball...........
@@harvey1954do you think that only like 20 fucking artists made music on the 60s or some shit? The #1 song of 1969 was Sugar Sugar by the Archies
Payola, corporate control, and a general lack of curiosity on the part of the masses to search for anything better. Jim Morrison said most people are content with what they're given, and he was so right.
People used to buy music. That’s the big difference. You put your money where your mouth is. Now people are just clicking for a monthly fee. There’s no way you can compare these 2 formats.
But there's also a much larger amount of media available how compared to then. There were few radio and TV stations back then and they all played the same songs. If you wanted to listen to music those were the only choices. Now there are so many choices.
@@russellward4624 I’m referring to music consumption. Not promotion. The Beatles SOLD platinum records. Now they count streams as equivalent to sales.
Yes! Once you have skin in the game it matters so much more
@johnviera3884 but they aren't selling platinum albums now. We're talking about now, not 1965. Right now they don't sell many albums. Their songs don't get the traction BlackPink, Swift etc.. get on RUclips, or any other music platform.
Late 60’ buying an album cost a hefty amount. Say, a month’s paper-round - after your mum took her ‘keep’ say two months! You valued it, it was a badge of honour to walk around town garnering like-minded future friends. Or getting beat up by Skinheads for being a Hippie. Happy daze! 🐝 John K.
I've been around for a while, going back as far as when Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Sly Stone, David Bowie, Bob Marley, and Queen were in their prime. What's changed is that the record companies trusted these pioneering artists to create "musical art" and still sell great numbers for their record labels. Record companies have always been about the money ultimately. It is, after all, a music business.
Today, talented artists are shut out for the manufactured, easily controllable, corporate pop star "industry plant," who will follow the corporate musical and visual script given to them. The labels don't want the difficult artist who wants to innovate and go on a magical mystery tour of music ideas that may not sell very well.
The industry really needs an Elvis Presley, Beatles, James Brown, Hendrix, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, or NWA-someone who will bust the door down again on a seismic scale, from the street level all the way up to the corporate doors.
Bro do you like Alter Bridge Breaking Benjamin
Bro you're gonna just try and sneak Sex Pistols in there like they belong musically or culturally?
@@andrewkelly1337 Ha ha noticed that too! I don't consider the Pistols to be a real band. They were Social Agitators & Performance Artists. As Johnny Rotten once said himself: "Sid can't play guitar and I can't sing."
In engineering terms, we call that a "local maximum". You can thoughtfully experiment and maximize any outcome, but what you often end up with is the world's best piece of crap.
Because this is a non-convex optimization problem
Cool to see someone bring it up here since I am doing exactly convex optimization right now
Every kind of music grew after The Beatles opened up the gates to what could be. They brought us the 70's. Why do you think the music of the 70's was so diverse & well produced?
RUSH!
@@Torgo1969 Rush, ELO, ELP...
Thank you for your clear and concise analysis. Rick Beato has reacted to the same article.
Yeah but Rick is a stuffed shirt who totally resents the 50's and especially the 60's.
@@MrmelodyUsBeato is a blowhard
Taylor Swift is like fast food whereas the Beatles are a meal prepared by a chef. No comparison.
4 talented chefs!
and McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers.
🤷♂
That wrong. Taylor Swift is a meal prepared by a chef considering her songs are authentic, sang by her, written by her, co-produced by her, played instruments by her, even music videos directed by her.
@@Mindphaser1 And sold to your mediocrity of taste.
@@Mindphaser1All of it mediocre generic Pablum.
Comparing Taylor Swift and The Beatles is beyond apples and oranges. Popular music is a business for sure but at least in the case of The Beatles, the purchaser got a lot for their money - it still sounds as good today and is as memorable as ever. Viewing music through an economic lens is a non-starter in my book.
The main reason is that musicians of the past were free to express themselves in music. So, not only people decided what they'd like to listen, but musicians as well. Every time when some truly amazing art- or prog-rock masterpiece came out it dramatically changed people's minds, forcing them to develop to understand such music. Today, those times have far gone, and it simply doesn't work this way anymore, unfortunately.
This was a spot on analysis related to the financialization of the music industry. During the late 60's and early 70's , bands were given much more artistic freedom. Starting with the release of Frampton Comes Alive, big business were impressed with the profits that album made. Big business became much more involved since then and it has been downhill ever since. There was a blip of hope with Nirvana but that was soon brought back under control by big business. You are right about the dehumanization of music today and you are correct that it is only going to get worse.
Words of the master: ruclips.net/video/KZazEM8cgt0/видео.html
The Beatles rule!
The variable not discussed is the most important:
The Listener. Companies react to market demand. If people demanded more, the music would change.
How people use music has changed, they don't care about music the way previous generations did, there was a social dimension that doesn't exist anymore because people are into their own thing via phones, etc , they aren't asking for given qualities be present in music . . . and more.
So, selling to a customer who uses the product for vastly different reasons, reasons that are simple, very unsophisticated, many don't know names of songs or artists, etc. . . . selling elevator-like music is simple in that market. Yes, there are those who demand certain things, some think technique equals musicality - for example, and other hyper focused things, but generally people don't interact with the product as earlier generations did. A less knowledgeable, variation-demanding, etc. customer wants basically the same thing all the time, and that is what companies are reacting to to make money. They are not looking to offer what isn't wanted by the market, and the market doesn't care about - or is sensitive to - experimentation, quality of musicians, etc.
This continues until they just blindly accept what's in the market because their focus is on other things.
Again, companies react to market demand. If people demanded more, the music would change. If they wanted real, un quantized, no pitch correction, less formula-based music, etc., businesses would provide it, they'd hunt for bands, musicians, song writers, etc. that tried new things. But the market cares nothing for such things in many ways, so Money Balling is possible in new ways. People have become predictable. That's scary. That hurts art.
That's not how it works. We now have a whole generation of people whose emotional exposure to music never included anything but what media puts in front of them. They literally don't even know about other options, until they can't relate to it. Then, when they find other options, they can't grow a connection, becuase none of their friends are on the same page, cause they are still stuck in the algorithm. Any other take is missing the point.
@@FreshSongs-AND-SOON-Politics Good point..i tend to agree with both you guys...I was a music teacher, been there, done that. I was exposed to a wider variety of music in my generation than people are today. Classical, Ray Charles, Motown, Jazz of all sorts, the Beatles, folk music, you name it. But we don't have that today... it goes with today's mantra, for evry sibject..."Keep them stupid, and we can control them and make money." Music on the Walmart record label lol.
You bring up a good point. When the Beatles hit the scene, popular music really changed. It wasn't just something to listen to while driving around or songs to dance to. It became "significant." Muscians became viewed as prophets, heros, social change leaders. Boys wanted to be cool like them, girls wanted boyfriends like them, records became almost sacred, the lyrics were studied. Change was in the air, and music led the way to the Cultural Revolution. Now music is just something cool to play in the background as you scroll thru Tik Tok or text your friends. You all meet up at some giant standium to attend the latest spectacle of the biggest pop stars, with super over-produced shows with a stage full of dancers, costumes, smoke & cheering. "Yea! We're great!! We're part of something fantastic!" Music is just a part of the show.
"Companies react to market demand. If people demanded more, the music would change." It is not that straightforward. By and large companies form the demand, they are not purely reactive. Did people demanded touch screens when Jobs sold first Iphone ? Companies try different things, and see what works, and some click with customers.
Taylor in 2024 sounds much like Taylor in 2016. Compare ‘Love Me Do’ to ‘Rain’ and then realize only three years separate those songs.
Here's how to categorize every Taylor Swift song. "I chose Chad, he did me wrong, we broke up, I wrote a song." Ad Infinitum
There was only one Age of Discovery, it won't repeat itself.
Excellent point.
beatles success meant they suddenly had access to a variety of instruments kept in the studio and unlimited studio time
@@joejones9520 And the other band had Brian Jones and his sitars from day one. Life is unfair.
When great art is subsituted for product that is geared solely for financial gains is becoming the norm, then we are sadly on a slippery slope. Dont be a part of it and make want you want to make because it moves you and leave that world behind. Thanks for the video . you make a very strong point here. Thank you
A dumbed down society makes for crappy pop culture. In 2024, people are told what is good and they are pummeled by that message by the music industry. The industry has no care about the songs or musicianship, just image and product to flood the market.
Do you think Janis Joplin would have been offered a contract in 2024? Highly unlikely. There is no joy or memorable musical aspects in today’s pop music. Just narcissistic banter and crude sexual content. Nothing clever.
I remember people saying the same thing in the 1970s. Just substitute “1973” for “2024”, and substitute “Ella Fitzgerald” for “Janis Joplin”.
@@Roikat Well,, I was alive back then and didn’t hear that. There are generational differences in taste but you can recognize talent even if the music they create is not in your personal sweet spot.
My parents listened to Sinatra, Dean Martin, Al Hirt, big band, etc. And while it was not for me in a profound way, I recognized the talent. They had the chops! What I hear now is not even really musical. Nothing memorable melody wise, no joy. Beat and pontificating about how much you have and how bad you are. Dumbed down.
@@DCToonTime I agree, but i’m just barely old enough to remember people of the Sinatra generation dissing the Beatles ruthlessly: their songs were shallow weird teen fashion, more about feminine hairstyles than music, blah blah blah. And of course, people thought Mozart was shallow and derivative. It takes a while to see what music “sticks”, but I would agree that most pop music an any era doesn’t hold up over time.
@@Roikat Well see what happens. A lot of the pop music of the 60’s and 70’s still stands. I get the feeling the pop of today does not have that kind of staying power. But I’ll be dead, so …
@@DCToonTime who can still remember / name a number 1 hit from 5 years ago? Nobody, including people in their early twenties.
I think in the past, there was a bigger focus on selling albums.
Over time the focus was selling singles and now it is more about views/plays.
Having a great album gets you more intimately involved with an artist. If someone has an album you can just play from beginning to end, that artist will have true fans.
I have never really listened to a Taylor Swift album but she does have great singles.
Singles have evolved to be very catchy, short, simple, and to the point. At the same time it has lost some of the depth and quirks of the songs of the past which seemed to have a more unique quality about them.
There has always been a drive to create the perfect single but the truly great artists have great albums and use the singles to get you to buy the album and through the album you develop a deeper connection to the artist.
The human voice has already been "dehumanised" by pitch correction and autotune software. Even historic recordings are now altered by pitch correction when transferred to on online platforms.
It's quite telling when you watch younger people reacting to recordings of the 1960s and 70s being pleasantly surprised at the high level of musicianship and how natural sounding music was back in the day.
Now AI can already generate vocals that sound as good or better than auto-tuned human vocals that you hear in pop music.
@@HumbleTrader001 Define 'better'! There is nothing that compares to the sound of a natural voice, unedited by pitch correction or auto-tuning or replaced by AI. Singers with great natural voices that are replete with artistic expression and emotional storytelling and personality and all of the human things that allow people to really connect with a song's melody and lyrics are what made songs from the 50s/60s/70s/80s sound so much better than the heavily pitch corrected/auto-tuned fare that has become the music industry standard of today where all singers' voices are beginning to have the same emotionless sound.
A big part of the problem today is that producers and sound engineers and the whole damn production team no longer hear music with their ears but rather see music with their eyes and they think that snapping notes to the lines on a 440Hz vocal tuning graph is the peak of perfection. In reality, it is the little imperfections and microtones that human vocal cords produce that make the songs sound so amazing and so unique, from one great natural voice singer to another.
Another big part of the problem is that few singers today take the time and expend the effort to train and improve their natural singing voice because they don't have to. They can sing however it is that they sing - great, mediocre or downright lousy - and their voice can be pitch-corrected to bland perfection.
I say it's time for great natural voice singers and music lovers to start fighting back against this pervasive use of pitch correction/autotuning/AI and stand up for the real beauty of artistic expression and integrity in music again! Are we ready for a revolution!?
@@elizabethmiller7291 I agree. I just find it interesting that AI vocals can replace human-auto-tuned vocals because both are fake. Only actual human non-auto-tuned vocals are the real deal. What's even more ridiculous is that record companies are starting to auto-tune classic recordings and re-release them auto-tuned, when they didn't ever need it in the first place.
The eventide ultra harmonizer introduced in 1970 was the first device to bring pitch correction to the music industry Oberheim also sold them in the 70's. It's not a new thing of today. It just got made into a software only app called auto-tune with no rack mount hardware needed in the 90's.
@@OmegaPoint042 Lost in translation ...
This is great, very educational. I hope your channel grows greatly!
Thank you. Appreciate it
Imagine Taylor Swift doing something like "Happiness is a warm gun" or "Hey Bulldog". I can't.
Or Helter Skelter or Maxwells Silver Hammer. Or everything else the Beatles released.
A fair comparison would be comparing only the songs that Taylor Swift actually wrote (excluding all those produced by her 12 writers) to the songs written by The Beatles. Swift, who I actually like, loses big time in that realistic comparison.
Anti hero is a good song
Please Noooo!
Please don't give her idea's Glow.
One of my favourite bands, Moody Blues, produced 7 albums in 7 years, wrote the lyrics, composed the music themselves whilst touring. They maybe never had so many songs that made it into the lists, but left a string of great full length albums each with different themes each innovative and inspiring.
T Swift uses a brigade of song writers that makes most of the job and what they do is just produce simple chord repetitions to which it is just to write lyrics. This music leaves nothing to your imagination.
(I sometimes hear about (Swedish) “artists” that are to release a single and that is the greatest event that year … a single?! 🙄)
The ONLY reason the BEATLES in the UK and the Beach Boys in the US were ALLOWED to experiment BECAUSE they were HUGE. However, IF Pet Sounds or Rubber Soul/Revolver had NOT SOLD Sgt. Pepper's would have NEVER been green lighted.
Yeah people tend to conveniently forget that they started off playing relatively straightforward, derivative pop rock.
@@alexgrunde6682 Yeah. I never liked The Beatles early pop music. In fact I actually hated it. But I loved their later more experimental stuff.
Yes, the Beatles and Beach Boys used their popularity to take music to a higher level. The industry then had to play along. That laid the groundwork for the rise of psychedelia, progressive rock, acid rock, hard rock, jazz rock, etc.
@@rft2001 Which raises an interesting question: Taylor Swift has the popularity and clout that she could get away with her next album being long-form ambient pieces backed with Mongolian throat singing. So is she staying in the predictable pop lane because the industry have their claws that deep in her? Or do we have it all wrong and her music really is just a reflection of her inner artistic voice?
@@alexgrunde6682 Interesting question. Yes, she, at this point, could do anything. I'd love to see her mature and grow as an artist the way that George Michael did. Once he got that kind of clout, he just did what he wanted which was much deeper and jazzier. That used to be the template, but musical depth also used to be part of the template. I doubt that she evolve as deeply as acts like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, etc., did. I don't think that Taylor is as deep or authentic as someone like Amy Winehouse, although if Taylor started partying like Amy did, you never know.
Motown Records was based on the vehicle assembly line and yet it still produced classics. The country labels invented the music assembly line where the writers, instrumentalists and singers were different people.
I believe there are a couple of reasons. One is there is no money for song writers as a solo profession. Fewer song writers putting out just as many songs as the past not only creates a sameness, but ultimately they will run out of ideas.
There are also no gatekeepers such as MTV, Soul Train and American Bandstand. The idea that cream rises to the top only applies if there is a container. With the internet there is no container. Pop music just means the most popular music which might not be that popular. For instance, Beyonce's last album has sold about 300,000 equivalent copies and Taylor Swift's last album sold about 1 million equivalent copies. Other pop artists are doing worse than Beyonce in terms of album sales. Such niche pop acts means the music isn't for the majority and are made for a specific fan base. The music doesn't sound good because the listener is not part of the fan base. When there were gatekeepers, the gatekeepers would find and promote acts with broader appeal and the top pop stars today came from the gatekeeping culture.
I don’t think the lack of gatekeepers; we have Spotify and Apple and Pandora, and, well, RUclips. The gatekeeping is just more algorithmic than based on the feelings of coked-up record executives.
However, I do think you’re spot on that the new music media landscape has led to a narrowing of pop music. It’s so easy to find niches these days as compared to yesteryear, so it’s much easier for music fans to circumvent the old few transmitters-many receivers model. So instead the industry maximizes profit extraction from a relatively narrow but high-spending demo, upper middle class youth. Hence every new Taylor Swift album getting like ten different versions, because they know the Swifties will buy up every version.
In a way it’s similar to mobile and gatcha games where they don’t need to appeal to a broad swath, they just need a critical mass of whales.
@@alexgrunde6682 They aren't gatekeepers. Years ago I-tune reported that 80% of its content had zero sales. Gatekeepers have 20 or less acts being promoted at any one time. Usually it's five or less per week.
"Where writers, instrumentalists and singers were different people." Country ? I would say that was a norm pre modern era. Tchaikovsky did not perform in concerts or sang his operas.
Brilliant and much appreciated analysis brother! Gen Z Beatles super fan here!
too much technology (auto-tune, clicktracks, loudness, etc.) have taken the humanness out of music. Our bones, the hair on our arms, etc. can hear the difference
loudness?
@@mikesteelheart Google “loudness wars.”
@@mikesteelheart the loudness war
And the songwriting stinks too. Generic chord progressions are still too frequent. (I-V-vi-IV and vi-IV-I-V especially). Extreme use of the supertonic note (second in major scale, fourth in minor scale). Taylor Swift might be the ultimate supertonic abuser.
wrong...re-record all the say beatles songs using what you listed and theyd sound even better, those are only good things and have nothing to do with the songwriting or melody or musicality.
its so great for someone to give an explanation for this sort of thing that isn't just 'its because musicians these days all make bad music and younger audiences don't care' - sure maybe that is a small part of it but lets be honest its more because the big industries don't advertise anything that they didn't create and the big industries create mediocre, 'safe', marketable music
aka #SHIT.
Your analysis is always on point. Great job.
Back in the day music flowed, now it's forced. Just a thought, I could be wrong.
Not really. Wasn’t it a thing back in the day for radio dis to be paid to play certain records?
Could be and are. Plenty of music today is absolutely gorgeous and the product of genuinely talented artists. If you’re looking for it on the pop charts, though, it’s slim pickings. But don’t get it twisted - the pop charts in the 60’s were mostly a joke, too. You could argue that pop artists then were just as manufactured as they are today.
Today's music does flow! It flows and sputters, like the excessively spicy meal I had last night into the toilet.
When music NEEDS dancing floor show , you know the music is horrible😮
Yeah that’s how you know opera singers are garbage, they’ve always a stage with them.
or a video with lions and mermaids
Interesting point. No doubt Michael Jackson had great dancing and showmanship. But the music and the concert still would’ve been great without it.
To me, if the show has dancers, I don’t want to see it. If the singer is also dancing, I REALLY don’t want to see it.
But then, I liked the Dead….
Good point. Swift has to have gimmicks, it’s all about choreography and her beauty. Just look at the group Kiss. They were very successful but had very little talent musically. Their success was based solely on a theatric gimmick. This exactly like the kiss formula.
There will never be a new genre of music again. There’s hasn’t been anything new in music since the nineties. America as the creative innovator is dead.
My dad used to say all the time that football is just a business now. I would counter that yes well everything is a business where people need to get paid for their work. He was right though because we now very rarely talk about the sport itself but instead the money surrounding it.
See Tom Petty's album the last DJ. It didn't resonate that much with when it came out over 20 years ago, but I find a lot of it pretty compelling (both musically and lyrically) today.
There's one small fly in the ointment of the corporate dream of reducing everything down to numbers and algorithms. The people who buy the product are flesh and blood and ultimately respond to real flesh and blood creators once they catch on to the numeric manipulation they are being subjected to. A backlash is forming and is already becoming apparent in the movie industry. Disney has been one of the chief users of this "moneyball" approach and it worked well for the early part of the 2000's but the wheels are beginning to fall off. They've also been one of the companies interested in the possibilities of using AI to replace creatives. Unless these corporate "geniuses" can figure out how to have their wonderful algorithms can be the customer as well this whole direction in the long run is going to be a disaster. As statisticians more and more replace creatives music and movies are going to become more uniform, bland and just plain shitty. Ultimately statisticians put out crappy music and crappy movies. But I'm sure the executives and the accountants will be too stupid to know the difference.
The coming #CRASH will shake out a lot of #phonyartistes.
people like what they like, the origins are irrelevant to them. if a person loves a song and finds out it's all ai theyll still love the song.
It is the fate of all commercial societies , like a day old Domino's pizza uneatable and harmful to the health
Moneyballing is definitely a huge thing in social media. I was in ads at Twitter, before the elmoing, and even in the non revenue side of the company they had their KPIs which were definitely at odds with what the users actually wanted.
Can you give some examples?
@@redmed10the sparkle menu that would forcibly switch back to the algo from chron after a while, there were so many people who hated that, but product didn't give a shit because it 'increased engagement'
Biggest difference is that the Beatles wrote their own music and created their own style. Taylor decides what style she wants to record and finds the best people that create that type of music to provide the songs to her.
yup
So fuking wrong. I definitely like the Beatles more than Taylor, but she writes her own songs and has real talent. YOU, however, have no idea what you're actually talking about. Ya know, a liar.
Rick Beato made exactly that point. In essence a lot of her stuff is assembly-line production.
@@danielschaeffer1294 Motown Records was an assembly-line type production, and so were the Beatles in the sense that they were in the recording studio 8-5 six days a week. But with the Beatles it was clear they (and George Martin) were the auteurs of their material, and with Motown you could recognize individual players adding brilliant contributions. Anyway the point is you can make great music in an assembly line type fashion. In fact it may be preferable.
Not sticking up for her or arguing against the general ideas put forth here, but TS does write or cowrite her own songs. She does a few covers, but the big majority of her recordings are her originals. Unless they are all lying to us and there is a big coverup. However, knowing how she started when she wàs 15, I think her songwriting is a real thing. Remember she started out as basically a country music artist and later moved to pop. She seems to be a pretty intelligent and strong willed person, so I'm pretty sure she has a huge imput in her style and how she is presented to her fans.
You're absolutely right about all that....but isn't that also a golden opportunity to do exactly the opposite and win that way?
Great analysis - focusing on the datafication and commodification that's been accelerating over the last 50 years. across all industries. I would even take it a step further to highlight the centralization which transcends even profit motive and seeks to control every aspect of society.
Moneyballing is focusing on short term while ignoring long term and is, ultimately, self destructive. The movie industry is a prime example. While the first couple of waves of Marvel movies were good and raked in box office cash, after Endgame it went to total crap. Why? The data said that the people loved superhero movies so movie studios started cranking them out as fast as possible not caring about the plot or characters. Well, that killed it. The folks who love superhero moves love plot and characters not repetitive SFX and current social trends. The movie industry is in a free fall because they got greedy and didn't understand their customers. The same will happen with all art forms. TV is already dead. Movies are in the tank. People are starting to abandon popular music for small performers on alternative media.
While the age of super-rich superstars is virtually over, the age of more and more folks being able to make a living doing music is just spinning up.
#RADIO is dying.
damn true that no arguement here. Just to add a color to money balling, it is maximized based upon the Mass who don't want anymore MUSIC but PRODUCT.
Like so many other things in our society, we've removed the human element and replaced it with computer models. Put another way, we've taken art and turned it into science. While science is an overall good, after all it allowed us to free up our time so we could pursue the arts, it can't replace art. As someone much wiser than me once said; Art for art's sake. Art should be judged purely for its formal and aesthetic qualities and that's something no algorithm will ever be able to do.
People also need to be aware that pop music is no longer a sonic experience but visual.
As such, if the artist cannot turn their audience on visually, they will not get airplay.
Loretta Lynn has said as much regarding country music.
Good point. MTV started the whole pop-song-with-video thing. It's expected now, it's a big part of any new song. It's the magic of Image Making. Listening to a song is not enough any more. The singer has to be perfectly beautiful and cool. All the girls (and some of the guys!) are plastic-surgery perfect, wearing striking outfits, doing fancy choreography.
@@loiswells3062 Except the choreography you cannot really appreciate in the modern, cut by few seconds, video's. Sometimes you even wander if anybody is actually dancing, or just make few steps
Excellent video..great analysis.
I've thought about this for the last several years but never thought to use the Moneyball analogy--very interesting! But, yes, Taylor, Drake, Marvel movies, Star Wars, etc are all Content™ driven by algorithms. It's interesting that the Swiftie default argument whenever someone criticizes her music is: "she's a billionaire and has the most streams, therefore she's the GOAT." Similar thing you see with Drake fans (or at least up until recently lol). Marvel movies as well. It's always "well, this thing makes the most money, therefore it's the best." Which is like saying McDonald's is "objectively" the best food because it's the biggest fast food franchise.
And you're 100% right: before technocapitalism took over and infected everything with its algorithms, artists were keen on experimentation. Everyone from The Beatles to Miles Davis, Prince, Bowie, Madonna, Kate Bush, Metallica--all of the truly transcendent artists who came up pre-Silicon Valley all experimented and went through phases and one could argue this experimentation was a big part of why their legacies endure to this day. Even Michael Jackson incorporated everything into his sound: soul, R&B, disco, pop, rock/hard rock ("Beat It" solo), etc. I'm sure someone will say "But Taylor went from country to pop" but those are two of the most commercial genres and there's a ton of overlap there. She and her team probably crunched the numbers and made a moneyball call and figured she could even be bigger by going pop. I'll never forget this anecdote from Imogen Heap about working with Taylor: she said she came up with some off-kilter melodies to add a little variety to a song they were working on and Taylor immediately went, "yeah, I think I'm gonna lose them with that" meaning the audience. And Imogen was just like "and that's why you sell millions of records and I don't" lmao. Fascinating insight!
I've heard of Drake, but never heard him. What happened to him recently?
First, I don't think that criticizing Taylor Swift because of the time/market in which she grew is really fair. Second, my defense of her is based on her lyrics and storytelling ability. The money she's made is indicative of the impact she's had. People keep saying 'no one BUYS music, they just pay a monthly fee and listen to whatever... it's not the same...' but look at her concerts. Those fans aren't there because they stumbled into a random playlist. They are RABID fans, just like The Beatles, Metallica, etc. had/have.
I think one thing that gets missed about these discussion is that The New York Times makes a claim, and people aren't mad at the Times, they're mad at Taylor Swift. SHE didn't say that, they did. Be upset with the Times, or the current state of the music business, or whatever.
Taylor a Goat??🤣🤣☠️☠️ She ain't a male to begin with😭
Who can hum a Swift tune a couple of days after hearing it?
Swifties...?
@@Songwriter376 Actually, you'll know between one quarter to one third of them - ruclips.net/video/AbW3sES2zCw/видео.html
ME!!!! ❤❤❤ I can hum it sing it and add some lore commentary to it while making friendship bracelets 😊
i read about her using dylan thomas in a new song which i thought was cool so i listened to it several times the other day but now i cant remember anything about how it goes and just realized i havent even thought about listening to it again
First Indian guy I see on RUclips who isn’t talking computers. Subscribed.
Lol, a few in politics too
All great points. Very well explained. Everybody needs to see this video.
great insight as usual , really enjoying your work
Thanks. Glad you liked it
We just came out of a 15 year era where the biggest pop stars were just spoiled high school mean girls reading off their burn books and passing that off as "music". What's followed is an EDM grunge era. We haven't had good pop music since about 2006 or so.
You had me at money ball.
In the 1980's there was a "band" called Milli Vanilli and it was discovered that they lip synced their live act. That was the end of their career. The same is not true today.
Milli Vanilli didn't sing it in the studio either.
I agree wholeheartedly. The same phenomenon in music as in movies. “Franchise” movies are dull. Today’s music is dull. It has been “optimized” to the average.
Moneyball created by Billy Beane manager of the Oakland A's destroyed the team. A lot of managers now are going back to using the eye test. Hopefully music will get back to the ear test.
How many championships did the Oakland A's and Billy Beane win or even play in??? ZERO!
@@donaldcarpenter5328 Exactly.
That’s, grossly wrong. Every MLB team is using analytics, pretty sophisticatedly, and are always looking to find the next undervalued stat. The teams that were slow to adopt to the new paradigm (see: the Mets) suffered for it. And it’s not relevant to managers, it’s general managers who by and large use it.
The A’s never got a championship out of it (although they did consistently perform above their payroll) not because it didn’t work but because it was too easy for everyone else to adopt it. The unique advantage it gave wasn’t proprietary enough to keep it secret.
sports still is a thing?
Excellent analysis Utkarsh! Much appreciated!
Love the intelligent commentary. You have given this Gen X food for thought - and you are right, I now see the common thread with the era of autotune and endless superhero movies. It has always been about money, no shit Sherlock, but somehow the creativity, the human touch has been factored out of the cost analysis. Bravo, sir!
Thank you. Appreciate your kind word and perspective
*words
People have been moaning about the "current" music scene for as long as I can remember. I remember in the late 70s people were whining about disco and how it was supposedly killing off "real music". Then in the 80s all the synth pop bands like Spandau Ballet and Culture Club appeared and people moaned about them Then the late 80s with the Stock Aitken & Waterman generic dance pop stuff.
and they were right and it led us to now, madonna officially began the era of awful music and it's never stopped except for few yrs in 90s
Taylor Swift would have never made it in the analog days
She wouldn't have made it in the 70s; she is too square and consiously put together. She's not cool. Stevie Nicks was cool, Janis Joplin was cool. Even Madonna was cool. Taylor is a creature of the Establishment.
Thanks for the insight
Maybe I'm just old , but it seems to me, that thinking Taylor Swift is anything like the Beatles, is ridiculous.
For sure, it's beyond mad to even have the two in the same breath and sentence.
He's referring to the popularity of the music, not the music itself.
I think you are 100% on the Moneyballing of Music. I see it happening everywhere. What you can do with a DAW is amazing. Very well said as always. Your video's are informative and educational. Keep up the good work Utkarsh!!!
Great talk. My heart believes that AI can never touch the genuine heights of creativity. This is coz AI is always consuming data, algorithms and the input is churning into an output that is highly derivative. So one can have a derivative kind of music but true musical breakthroughs/genres/sounds erupt only from the restless chaotic landscape that our collective human soul is.
Thank you for your video (my first time visiting your Chanel). This was very informative and made sense regarding why popular music these days is not exciting. I feel it doesn't move me or touch my soul the way the music of the past did. I'm so grateful for all the past greats I got to listen to (Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Queen, etc)
So interesting, it explains so much. Thanks
Chess has the same problem, and it's right around the corner for Basketball: working toward a solution for a game makes the game better, but eventually you figure it all the way out, and once a game has been solved, nobody wants to play anymore.
How about ENFORCING the RULES such as "traveling", double dribble, etc...???
@@donaldcarpenter5328 it's actually the other way around. The game being solved makes it hard to enforce precision, psychologically. Like, from the perspective of someone immersed in the culture, once you as an insider see that the best practices and dominant strategies have become rote, what's the point in getting in people's faces about the particulars?
I don't know if pop music is worse today. But as I'm now 58, I'm an old geezer, so it's just natural for old geezers complain about younger people's music. Just like in 1964 when old geezers complained about the Beatles. My only problem with Taylor Swift is that's she's inescapable. Not all of that is her fault, but the celebrity-obsessed media.
Some decades ago you saw some passion in mass media (music, comic, movies). They were advancing, experimenting with new technologies, trying to express their inner thoughts, showing something they believed was exciting. From 20 years everything is a lot more safer, the personal and artistic expression has mostly gone away. I think there was a lot more amateurism in every field of popular media back then, more adventuring, and less money on the table too. They were mainly works of passion and the money would come later, now it's the other way around.
Excellent points sir, but I feel in this meta across the board, something has been lost
In a few years, mainstream pop will just be a big bass kick, finger snap snare, and auto tuned variants of “yea, girl, oooooo, youuuu, club, smoke and baby” and you’ll hear it blasting loudly at your job, super markets or one out of every five cars passing by.
and these cars will have female drivers in my experience
That is the most realistic description of the concept of Hell that I've ever read.
You’ve clearly never worked in an Amazon warehouse at 3am. That, and modern reggaeton are all they play at 90+db. Somehow it pumps a lot of the workers up.
@@kyussfan6 I'd walk out if they played that stuff at work at that volume and go straight to human resources.
The cicata high hat is the worst.
As Rick Beato pointed out, the Beatles wrote the music they performed, as opposed to almost all of Taylor’s songs that she performs but were written by committee.
You might want to get your facts straight before commenting… she writes all of her song, most time with only another person (Jack Antonoff or Aaron Dessner theses days) and has written a full album all by herself. Last album she has 3-4 songs written all by herself. Beatles were also four people in the band so at the end Taylor’s music has less writers than the beatles…
I hear there’s these things called “orchestras” where so-called musicians don’t play music they’ve written, they’re just playing music some old white dudes wrote! So soulless.
@@1sim2clo Swift's songs are much more simplistic and she is using studio writers who write for many other acts. That's why her songs sound like everyone else's.
The Beatles sat around and bounced ideas back and forth but most of the material was written by only two Beatles, Paul and John.
@@rft2001 for sure the Beatles are in another class musicaly. Taylor special talent is more in the storytelling and cadence. But she is far from being just a performer… She gets involved in every aspect of song crafting. I love them both and I don’t get why people always try to compare artists that much, especially when they have being active more than 60 years apart !
@@1sim2clo Yes, there is such a time difference and I really don't dislike Taylor. I find her to be one of the better top tier pop stars and I do agree that she is very talented. She takes the high road usually instead of catering to the lowest common denominator, like so many others do. I also get the feeling that she is a real person, a good person. We really shouldn't compare them.
We used to have a culture of music, but over the 20th Century music became a commodity. Taylor Swift is a symptom of the phenomena. Before Thomas Edison put a tin horn with a need to a wax cylinder, if you wanted to listen to music, you had to play it yourself. Popular music had to be simple, so regular folk can play it, and Classical music was for professional. Jazz was for punks, and came up through Vaudeville, so it was part of a circus.
Jazz was more musicians having fun than performing for the audience, so it wasn't too long, before the audience started wanting something more exciting, and the easiest way of doing that is simple and loud. From there, Rock'n Roll progressed, and the Beatles were phenomenal, because they were excellent song writers and performers, while only Ringo and George were much in the way of instrumentalists. Well, by Rubber Soul, Paul was laying out bass lines on par with Mo-Town, so it's not like anyone in the band was any less than competent. They wrote fairly simple Pop music, and comodotized it by making extraordinary recordings, with constant retakes and experimentation. When the Beatles broke up, musicians of the quality that used to play Jazz started in where the Beatles left off. By the end of the 1970's, playing music was only for professionals. A culture of music had turned into a culture of selling music.
Since the 1980's, music has turned into selling more product made more cheaply to people that don't know the slightest thing about making music. Of course, this leads to the dilemma of an industry that only has crap to sell, so how many performers do they need? Taylor Swift is a pretty girl that can keep time. That's not nothing, but it certainly isn't the Beatles.
Very good analysis. Thanks
I think missing in the equation also is the consolidation of media. Less competition in all areas: fewer labels, fewer outlets, fewer physical media makers. The consolidation of radio in particular has erased regional differentiation and the varied pool of artists that are promoted.
And a real lack of investment in real bands and artists that write and play their own material. It's a real shame that artists like Alice Phoebe Lou, Magick Brother Mystic Sister, Sven Wunder, etc. don't get any backing.
@@rft2001 Who?
@@MrmelodyUs Exactly. The more inventive acts get no promotion, no budget, no studio time, etc. The industry used to take chances because the trusted the taste and openness of their audience. Now, are they underestimating the taste and openness of their audience or do audiences simply want sugar-coated fruitloops?
I completely agree. Although some bands are starting to find ways around the system. Check out the history of the band The Warning. They were basically a family operated enterprise until 2022. They negotiated for months and refused to sign unless they kept full creative control. Finally, a guy with an ear at Lava Records realized the potential and gave them what they wanted. They are up to 1 million plays a month on Spotify and just about to explode. All with talented people, not the algorithm. A breath of fresh air in a moribund industry.
Totally agree. The Warning IS in the same ballpark as the Beatles (though tbh they are technically better at age 20 than the Beatles were).
The Warning combine great musicianship, excellent songwriting and harmonies, on-stage charisma with amazing audience engagement. They are three down-to-earth expletive-free sisters who are very likeable role-models, as seen in interviews and in their many behind-the-scenes videos. Their drummer won the Drumeo Rock Drummer of the Year Award, sings lead on some songs while drumming full-tilt, writes most of their songs, and just co-directed one of their music videos. Basically she's a human dynamo. The other two are no slouches either. Anyway, sorry for the "commercial" , but The Warning have me more enthused about music than I've felt in many years.
Superb video.Spot on!
Wow! All the way from Singapore,while im in a small town in Kentucky so cool my man thx!!
Excellent analysis. And the next phase, AI, will take banality to a whole new level.
We see the same thing in architecture; all our cities look the same, except a few token “preserved” buildings, maybe a special street.
You do not have to buy music. It is within you. There is so much good music out there at pubs n clubs. Music will find you if you want it. And you will know. Swifties are not fans of music, as such, they are part of a group. It's the sense of belonging. That's not to say that her music is bad. Music is not about winning or being the best, unless you want it to be.
Thanks for your analysis! Very informative to instruct on the business side of the "Music Business." It is not about "Likes" as much as it is about driving a product. One suggestion on your presentation if you don't mind. Please keep inserting the text version of key points on the screen as you had on this video. Case in point. When you said, "ROI" I heard "Edelweiss." Not sure why. :) But, seeing the text "ROI" appear on screen really helped me to tune into your point with proper context. Thanks! Great job again on the analysis! As one fellow guitarist to another. Cheers!
Thank you for the kind words. The suggestion on the text titles for critical key words is a great one. I will follow it for my future videos
Great points. I just want to point this out: before the Beatles, almost all popular music was kind of 'money balled' and specialized. There were song writers, orchestra/band leaders, arrangers, and specialized studio musicians who laid the foundation for Sinatra, Martin, Bing, etc. to be pop stars (30's through early 60's). The British Invasion made it so that the band itself took all those roles and became a complete, creative package (60's through early 80's). What we've been seeing for the last decade-ish is just a return to the way it was before with hyper-specialized 'producers' who are just here to work on 1 track at a time that can become the next single in an album of optimized singles. I'm old enough to remember the singer-songwriter days of Taylor Swift and must wonder how many people she now involves in her songwriting process.
Yeah, it's not just music obviously, but it's everything. The internet sucks more as unchecked capitalism plus more and more data analytics work together to maximize profits. We wind up with a billion nearly indistinguishable albums and movies and books and whatever else and everything is designed to be as appealing as possible to as many people as possible to maximize profits--so nobody takes risks and everything is designed to be easily digestible and to minimize risk, not to be interesting or novel or challenging.
Comparing Taylor Swift with the Beatles is like comparing candy floss with a good steak.
Taylor can thank her lucky stars all the great bands of the 60s and 70s are either gone or way past their prime she wouldn't even be signed to a label.It's laughable comparing her to the Beatles, she couldn't be Hermans Hermits on her best day I know we have to listen to her shit at work daily
Or and Impossible Burger.
Spot on , mate .Well done .
Thank you
Good video. Perceptive and well-presented.
Thank you
As far as popularity and sheer earning power - sure. Quality of music, songwriting, cultural significance, etc. - not even close.
Who is Taylor Swift?
She sang in Banjo Ben's band.
She asked that about herself in the song "22".
You brought a very good point that I have been thinking about lately. Specially in sports. The moneyball concept. The problem is that doing that makes them function like manufacturing facilities thus robbing the sports and other areas like music of the true human element.
Someone said "chasing what worked yesterday" is the MO of all corporate executives and then called them all cargo cultists. Spot on IMO.